Skip to main content

Full text of "Papers and proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania"

See other formats 


tf Joyal sosiehy 0 | Tasmania | 


fa8 
* 
a8 | 
. 


07 JAN 2020 


Papers and Proceedings of 


The Royal Society 0f Tasmania 


Edited by Dr Sally Bryant 
and published by the Society 


Volume 154 
December 2020 


The Royal Society of Tasmania acknowledges, with deep respect, the traditional owners of this land, and the ongoing 
custodianship of the Aboriginal people of Tasmania. The Society pays respect to Elders past, present and emerging. 


We acknowledge that Tasmanian Aboriginal peoples have survived severe and unjust impacts resulting from invasion 
and dispossession of their Country. 


Asan institution dedicated to the advancement of knowledge, the Royal Society of Tasmania recognises Aboriginal cultural 
knowledge and practices and seeks to respect and honour these traditions and the deep understanding they represent. 


Published by 

The Royal Society of Tasmania 
GPO Box 1166 

Hobart, Tasmania, Australia 7000 


www.rst.org.au 


9 December 2020 


ISSN 0080-4703 


Cover photograph: View from Tasman Island to “The Blade’, Tasman Peninsula: S Bryant. 


Proofing by Ms Caroline Mordaunt 
Typesetting by Ms June Pongratz 


Print Tasmania 


PAPERS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF TASMANIA 
VOLUME 154 


Contents 


Kantvilas, G., Coppins, B.J., McCarthy, P.M. & Elix, J.A. New records of lichens from Tasmania, principally 


from the 2018 TMAG Expedition of Discovery to Musselroe Bay ........eeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeceeececeeeeeeseeeasenes 


Griffin, A.R., Hingston, A.B., Harwood, C.E., Harbard, J.L., Brown, M.J., Ellingsen, K.M. & Young, C.M. 
Potential pollen vectors of the mass flowering tree Acacia dealbata, within its natural range in southern 
Tasmania 


Ridley, C. The tourist and tourism gazes upon Cradle Mountain and Freycinet National Park ............cceceeee000+ 


Robinson, S. & Dick, W. Black Rats eradicated from Big Green Island in Bass Strait, Tasmania ................0000- 


Robinson, S. & Gadd, L. Unviable feral cat population results in eradication success on Wedge Island, Tasmania 


Wapstra, M., Baker, M.L. & Daniels, G.D. Collecting history and distribution of the potentially invasive 
Disa bracteata (South African orchid) in Tasmania 


Turner, P.A.M., Wapstra, M., Woolley, A., Hopkins, K., Koch, A.J. & Duncan, F. Long-term monitoring of the 


threatened lesser guineaflower Hibbertia calycina (DC.) N.A.Wakef. (Dilleniaceae) in Tasmania ............... 


Bryant, S.L. & Harris, S. Overview of Tasmania’s offshore islands and their role in nature conservation ............ 


SA / 


AW UNIVERSITY of 
Tasmania TASMANIA 


Explove the possibilities 


ee iy 


ili 


page 


Publication of this volume was generously supported by the Government of Tasmania and the University of Tasmania. 


iv 


THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF TASMANIA 


Council and Office Bearers from March 2020 to March 2021 


Patron 
Her Excellency Professor the Honourable Kate Warner AC, Governor of Tasmania 


President 
Mrs Mary Koolhof 


Vice President 
Prof. Jocelyn McPhie 


Immediate Past President 
Prof. Ross Large AO 


Honorary Secretary 
Mrs Marley Large 


Honorary Treasurer 
Mr David Wilson 


Councillors 
Prof. Ross Large AO 
Dr Robert Johnson 
Dr Greg Lehman 
Dr Angela Ryan 
Dr John Thorne AM 
Dr Adele Wilson 
Ms Niamh Chapman 
Ms Shasta Henry 
Mr Peter Manchester 
Mrs Roxanne Steenbergen 


Honorary Editor 
Dr Sally Bryant 


Honorary Librarian 
Ms Juliet Beale 


Honorary Solicitor 
Mr James Crotty 


Honorary Membership Officer 
Mrs Roxanne Steenbergen 


Representative of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery 
Ms Janet Carding 


Representatives of the Northern Branch 
Dr Frank Madill 
Mr David Morris 
Mr Robin Walpole 


Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 154, 2020 1 


NEW RECORDS OF LICHENS FROM TASMANIA, PRINCIPALLY FROM THE 
2018 TMAG EXPEDITION OF DISCOVERY TO MUSSELROE BAY 


by Gintaras Kantvilas, Brian J. Coppins, .Patrick M. McCarthy and John A. Elix 


(with two plates) 


Kantvilas, G., Coppins, B.J., McCarthy, P.M. & Elix, J.A. 2020 (9:xii). New records of lichens from Tasmania, principally from the 2018 
TMAG Expedition of Discovery to Musselroe Bay. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 154: 1-8. Tasmanian 
Herbarium, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Box 5058, UTAS LPO, Sandy Bay, Tasmania 7005, Australia (GK). Royal Botanic 
Garden Edinburgh, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, United Kingdom (BJC). 64 Broadsmith St, Scullin, A.C.T. 2614, 


Australia (PMMcC). Research School of Chemistry, Building 137, Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia 
(JAE). Author for correspondence: Email: Gintaras.Kantvilas @tmag.tas.gov.au 


Nineteen lichen species are recorded for the first time from Tasmania: Amandinea conranensis Elix & P.M.McCarthy, Bacidia laurocerasi 
(Delise ex Duby) Zahlbr., Buellia extenuatella Elix & Kantvilas, Catinaria atropurpurea (Schaer.) Vézda & Poelt, Collema crispum (Huds.) 
- Weber ex KH. Wigg., Diploschistes euganeus (A.Massal.) J.Steiner, D. gyrophoricus Lumbsch & Elix, Endocarpon crassisporum P.M.McCarthy 
& Filson, Gyalecta pellucida (Coppins & Malcolm) Baloch & Liicking, Lecanora pseudogangaleoides Lumbsch subsp. pseudogangaleoides, 
L. strobilina (Spreng.) Kieff., Opegrapha niveoatra (Borrer) J.R.Laundon, O. spodopolia Nyl., O. varia Pers., Physcia austrostellaris Elix, 
Ramonia absconsa (Tuck.) Vézda, Trapelia concentrica Elix & PM.McCarthy and Xanthoparmelia xerica (Elix) Elix. The new combination 
Austroparmelina corrugativa (Kurok. & Filson) Elix 8 Kantvilas is proposed and Austroparmelina euplectina (Kurok. ex Elix). A.Crespo 


et al. is reduced to synonymy. The salient morphological and anatomical features, ecology and distribution are discussed for each species. 
Key Words: lichenised fungi, taxonomy, floristics, Austroparmelina. 


INTRODUCTION 


Since the first checklists of Tasmanian lichens, for example 
those of Wetmore (1963), which listed 421 taxa, Kantvilas 
(1989: 633 taxa) and Kantvilas (1994: 762 taxa), the number 
of lichens recorded for Tasmania has risen steadily and now 
stands at 1309 (McCarthy 2020). The increases have been 
derived from taxonomic revision of existing herbarium 
collections, fortuitous and ad occollecting, as well as target- 
ed studies of particular locations (e.g. Jarman & Kantvilas 
1994, Kantvilas et al, 2012), vegetation types (Jarman & 
Kantvilas 1995, Kantvilas & Jarman 2012) and taxonomic 
groups (e.g. Kantvilas 2012, Kantvilas & Coppins 2019). 
More recently, a formal survey program, the Tasmanian 
Museum and Art Gallery Expeditions of Discovery, has 
been initiated with the express aim of, inter alia, discovering 
new or hitherto overlooked species in Tasmania. The first 
of these expeditions, undertaken in ‘2017 in the Little 
Swanport area on Tasmania’s east coast (Baker et al. 2019), 


proved exceptionally productive for lichens. Of the 170 ° 


species recorded, two were described as new to science (Elix 
et al. 2019a, McCarthy & Kantvilas 2018) and a further 19 
were new records for Tasmania (Elix et al, 2019b, Baker et 
al. 2019); additional putative new taxa await further study. 
The second expedition was undertaken in late 2018 to the 
Cape Portland—Musselroe Bay area in the far northeast of 
Tasmania. Lichens again proved to bea rich source of novelties 
and, whereas an inventory of species will be presented 
elsewhere, new records for Tasmania are documented 
here. As with previous accounts of this nature, some of the 
discoveries arose entirely from fieldwork conducted during 
the expedition. In other cases, the expedition identification 


work prompted a broader investigation of herbarium 
collections, and the novelties in question were found to be 
represented by additional specimens from other Tasmanian 
localities. It is particularly noteworthy that two of the new 
records are of species previously known only from their 
respective type collections: Ramonia absconsa (from South 
Carolina, U.S.A.) and Xanthoparmelia xerica (from South 
Australia). 


MATERIAL AND METHODS 


The study is based chiefly on material collected by the 
first author during the TMAG Expedition of Discovery at 
Musselroe Bay, northeastern Tasmania, during November 
2018, anda second, follow-up field trip in September 2019. 
Specimens are housed in the Tasmanian Herbarium (HO), 
with selected duplicates sent to other herbaria as indicated 
in the text. Additional reference herbarium material, 
chiefly from HO, was: also consulted. Anatomical and 
morphological observations were undertaken using light 
microscopy, with thin hand-cut sections mounted in water, 
10% KOH (Kk), lactophenol cotton blue, Lugol’s iodine 
after pre-treatment with dilute KOH, 50% HNO, (N) and 
ammoniacal erythrosin. Routine chemical analyses using 
thin-layer chromatography follow standard methods (Elix 
2014). Nomenclature oflichen asci mainly follows Hafellner 
(1984). Ascospore measurements are presented either in 
the format: 5th percentile-average-95th percentile, with 
outlying values given in brackets and 7 being the number 
of measurements, or as a simple range. 


2 Gintaras Kantvilas, Brian J. Coppins, Patrick M. McCarthy and John A. Elix 


THE SPECIES 
Amandinea conranensis Elix & P.M.McCarthy 


Characterised by a crustose thallus not containing any 
substances detectable by thin-layer chromatography, 
black apothecia 0.1-0.3 mm wide, 1-septate, Buellia-type 
ascospores, 9-14 x 5—8 um, constricted at the septum when 
older, and filiform conidia, 12-21 x 0.7-1 jum (see Elix et 
al. 2017). It is most similar to the common A. punctata 
(Hoffm.) Coppins & Scheid., which has larger ascospores 
(10-20 x 5-9 um) that do not become constricted. The 
Tasmanian specimen was collected from a fencepost in a 
paddock. The species also occurs in Victoriaand New South 
Wales where it is an epiphyte in coastal situations. 


TASMANIA: Cape Portland, Musselroe Wind Farm, 
Tregaron Lagoons, vicinity of Turbine D8, 40°47'38"S 
148°05'24"E, 30 m alt., 10 Sep. 2019, G. Kantvilas 
256/19 (HO). 


Austroparmelina corrugativa 
(Kurok. & Filson) Elix & Kantvilas 
comb. nov. 
MycoBank No. MB834192 


Parmelia corrugativa Kurok. & Filson, Bull. Natl Sci. Mus. 
ser. B, 1: 38 (1975); Pseudoparmelia corrugativa (Kurok. 
& Filson) Hale, Smithsonian Contr. Bot. 31: 25 (1976); 
Canoparmelia corrugativa (Kurok. & Filson) Elix & Hale, 
Mycotaxon 27: 278 (1986). Type: South Australia: near 
Balhannah, 3 June 1966, R.W. Rogers 553 (holo— MEL!). 


Parmelina euplectina Kurok. ex Elix, Mycotaxon 47: 116 
(1993); Austroparmelina euplectina (Kurok. ex Elix). 
A.Crespo, Divakar & Elix, in Crespo et al., Syst. e Biodiv. 
8: 216 (2010). Type: New South Wales: Raymond Terrace 
to Bulahdelah Road, N of Karuah, 9 May 1965, R.B. Filson 
7176 (holo— MEL!) 


With its grey foliose thallus of rather rounded, imbricate 
lobes containing lecanoric acid (medulla C+ red), black 
underside with an extensive, pale brown marginal zone, and 
lack of isidia or soredia, this species closely resembles the 
common and widespread A. pseudorelicina (Jatta) A.Crespo 
et al. It differs by containing the orange pigment euplectin 
(K+ violet), visible as a thin, orange layer in the lower 
part of the medulla. In Tasmania, this species occurs as 
an epiphyte in dry sclerophyll woodland and scrub in the 
northeast of the State where it is usually sympatric with 
A. pseudorelicina. It has a similar ecological distribution in 
southeastern Australia. 


TASMANIA: Glen Esk Road near Middle Run 
Hill, 41°48'S 147°27'E, 220 m alt., 24 Aug. 2001, G. 
Kanwvilas 754/01 (HO); Sawpit Hill Road, c. 1 km SE 
of Diabobble Hill, 41°31'S 147°23'E, 420 m alt., 5 Sep. 
2001, G. Kantvilas 815/01 (HO); Tomahawk River, 40°52'S 
147°45'E, sea-level, 1 June 2003, G. Kantvilas 108/03 


(HO); Cape Portland, Musselroe Wind Farm, Tregaron 
Lagoons, “Copperhead Road”, 40°46'49"S 147°58'00"E, 2 
m alt., 9 Nov. 2018, G. Kantvilas 326/18, 328/18 (HO). 


Bacidia laurocerasi (Delise ex Duby) Zahlbr. 


This name has been variously applied in herbaria to 
specimens from Australia and elsewhere, often incorrectly. 
Based on the comprehensive account by Ekman (1996) and 
comparison with reliably identified reference specimens, it 


_ is characterised as follows: 


Thallus crustose, pale brownish grey to greenish grey. 
Apothecia biatorine, 0.3—0.8 mm diam.; disc reddish brown 
to dark brown ox blackish, sometimes a little piebald, matt, 
epruinose, plane at first, later becoming convex; proper 
exciple concolorous with the disc ora little paler at the upper 
edge, usually pale reddish brown at the sides, persistent 
or becoming reduced and inapparent in the oldest, most 
convex apothecia, in section 60-90 pm thick, colourless 
within, at the edges reddish brown to purplish brown, 
K+ purplish brown, N+ orange-brown, lacking crystalline 
inclusions. Hypothecium 50-100 pm thick, colourless to 
pale yellowish, intensifying yellowish in K. Hymenium 
65-85 pm thick, not inspersed, colourless, with a brown 
to purplish brown epihymenial layer, K+ purple-brown 
intensifying, N+ orange-brown. Ascospores acicular, tapered 
towards the distal end, side-by-side or loosely coiled in the 
ascus, (40—)42—56.6-70(-72) x 3-3.5-4(-4.5) um (7 = 
40), with 12-17 septa distinct in water. Chemistry: no 
substances detected (plate 1A). 

Critically, this species lacks any greenish, N+ crimson-red 
pigments, a feature that separates it from the otherwise 
similar B. wellingtonii (Stirt.) D.J.Galloway. In Tasmania, 
B. laurocerasi appears to be associated with lowland, 
often swampy Melaleuca ericifolia-dominated vegetation. 
In Australia, it has been recorded with certainty from 
Kangaroo Island (Kantvilas 2019), but ‘other records 


remain unconfirmed. 


TASMANIA: Moores Hill near Beaconsfield, 41°14'S 
146°52'E, 80 m alt., 27 Apr. 1981, G. Kantvilas 256/81A 
(HO); Tatlows Beach Coastal Reserve, 40°47'S 145°17'E, 
1 malt., 15 May 2019, G. Kantvilas 154/19 (HO); Cape 
Portland, Musselroe Wind Farm, between Petal Point Road 
and Tregaron Lagoons, 40°47'S 147°58'E, 10 m alt., 9 
Nov. 2018, G. Kantvilas 343/18 (HO). 


Buellia extenuatella Elix & Kantvilas 


This species is superficially similar to Amandinaea conranensis 
and A. punctata in having a highly reduced thallus and 
black apothecia, but is distinguished by the combination 
of a scurfy, membranaceous or sorediate upper surface, 
Buellia-type ascospores, 11-19 x 5-8 um, and bacilliform 
conidia, (3—-)4—6 x 0.5-1 um. The Tasmanian specimen was 
epiphytic in Allocasuarina-dominated woodland, a habitat 
consistent with its occurrence on the southern Australian 
mainland (Elix & Kantvilas 2013). 


New records of lichens from Tasmania 3 


dark squamulose thallus with small, dark coloured apothecia. (C) Diploschistes gyrophoricus, with perithecioid ascomata. 
(D) Lecanora pseudogangaleoides subsp. pseudogangaleoides. Scales = 1 mm. 


TASMANIA: Cape Portland, Musselroe Wind Farm: 
“Cadaver Ridge”, 40°48'28"S 148°04'05"E, 65 malt. 11 
Sep. 2019, G. Kantvilas 225/19 (HO). 


Catinaria atropurpurea (Schaer.) Vézda & 
Poelt 


Characterised by a thin, undelimited crustose thallus, 
the typically reddish brown to blackish brown, biatorine 
apothecia, 0.2-0.8 mm wide, the 8-spored, Cuatillaria-type 
asci where the well-developed tholus is uniformly amyloid 
and lacks internal differentiation, the slender, paraphyses with 
reddish brown, swollen apices, and the hyaline, ellipsoid, 
1-septate ascospores, 10-17 x 5—7.5 pm, with a gelatinous 
perispore c. 1 pm thick. Ascus structure distinguishes this 
species readily from several superficially similar genera, 
especially Megalaria, which also has 1-septate ascospores. 
Catinaria atropurpurea is widespread in temperate regions 
throughout the world. In Tasmania, it occurs on the bark of 
various trees and shrubs, mainly in coastal vegetation, but 
has rarely also been recorded inland in wet forest. 


TASMANIA: Flinders Island, Yellow Beaches, 40°13'S 
148°15'E, 2 m alt., 8 Aug. 1978, J.S. Whinray 1231 Pp: 
(HO); Cape Deslacs, 42°59'S 147°33'E, 1 Jun. 1980, 
G. Kantvilas 231/80 (BM, HO); Swan Basin, 42°12'S 
145°1G'E, sea-level, 21 Jan. 2000, G. Kantvilas 33/00 
(HO); southern slope of South Sister, 41°32'S 148°10'E, 
640 m alt., 10 Nov. 2004, G. Kantvilas 377/04A (HO); 
Florentine Bridge, 42°30'S 146°27'E, 360 m alt., 2 Nov. 
2005, G. Kantvilas 315/05 (HO); Little Musselroe River 
estuary, 40°46'S 148°03'E, 5 m alt., 6 Nov. 2018, G. 
Kantvilas 181/18 (HO); St Helens Point, 10 m alt., 2020, 
G. Kantvilas 99/20 (HO). 


Collema crispum (Huds.) Weber ex F.H.Wigg. 


Characterised by a thallus of minute, squamiform lobes 
and lobules mostly up to c. 0.2 mm wide, and conspicuous 
apothecia to 1 mm wide, with a red-brown to black- 
brown, plane disc, a proper exciple of elongate (rather than 
paraplectenchymatous) hyphae, and 3-septate ascospores, 
22-34 x 10-16 um, occasionally with an additional 
longitudinal or oblique septum (plate 1B). In Tasmania, 
this species has been recorded on man-made substrata 


4 Gintaras Kantvilas, Brian J. Coppins, Patrick M. McCarthy and John A. Elix 


(for example, the mortar of a ruined building) as well as 
on calcarenite in coastal heathland, and it has a similar 
distribution and ecology in other parts of the world (Gilbert 
et al. 2009). In his monumental work, Degelius (1974) did 
not formally record C. crispum from Tasmania, although he 
noted the existence of sterile specimens which might be this 
species. One such annotated specimen (G.C. Bratt 70/568, 
HO) was located but is considered here to be Collema 


subflaccidum Degel. 


TASMANIA: Flinders Island, Trousers Point, 40°13'S. 


148°02’E, 10 m alt., 23 Mar. 2014, G. Kantvilas 368/14 
(BG, HO); Cape Portland, Musselroe Wind Farm, The 
Ruins, N end of Home Beach, 40°45'12"S 147°57'28"E, 
10 m alt., 8 Nov. 2018, G. Kantvilas 299/18, 302/18 
(HBG, HO). 


Diploschistes euganeus (A.Massal.) J.Steiner 


Diploschistes euganeus is one ina complex of morphologically 
similar species which grows on non-calcareous rocks and 
has perithecioid ascomata (Mangold er al. 2009). ‘It is 
characterised best by lacking lichen substances, a feature 
that distinguishes it from D. gyrophoricus and D. sticticus 
(K6rb) Mill-Arg. (with gyrophoricacid) and from D. aeneus 
(Miill.Arg.) Lumbsch and D. actinostomus (Pers.) Zahlbr. 
(both with lecanoric acid). This widespread species has a 
scattered Tasmanian distribution on exposed rocks in low 
rainfall areas and displays a similar ecology in other parts 
of temperate Australia. 


TASMANIA: Glen Morey Saltpan, near Tunbridge, 
42°09'S 147°29'E, 180 m alt., 8 Noy. 1984, A. Moscal 
8802 (HO); Cape Portland, 40°45'S 147°57'E, 5 m alt., 
8 Nov. 2018, G. Kantvilas 282/18 (HO). 


Diploschistes gyrophoricus Lumbsch & Elix 


Like the preceding species, D. gyrophoricus is one of a 
group of morphologically similar species with perithecioid 
ascomata (plate 1C). It is characterised by the presence of 
gyrophoric acid and is distinguished from the chemically 
identical D. sticticus by subtle differences in the size and 
shape of its muriform ascospores. In D. gyrophoricus, these 
are (18—)20-—23.3-27(-30) x (11-)13.5-15.5-18(-20) 
um, broadly ovate-ellipsoid with broadly rounded apices, 
and with a length/width ratio of 1.3-/.5-1.8 (Tasmanian 
specimens, 7 = 55). In contrast, the ascospores of D. sticticus 
are ellipsoid and relatively longer and narrower: (22-)24- 
34. 9-40 (—42) x (11-) 12-17. 1-20(-21) pm, witha length 
/ width ratio of 1.7—2.0-2.4 (Tasmanian specimens, n = 
28). Diploschistes gyrophoricus is widespread in Tasmania on 
exposed rocks in rough pasture and dry sclerophyll woodland. 
Itis also known from southeastern mainland Australia, New 
Zealand and South America. 


TASMANIA: Hunting Grounds, Dysart, 42°34'S 
147°10'E, 400 m alt., 7 Aug. 1981, G. Kantvilas 473/81 
& P.W. James (HO); Spiky Bridge, 42°11'S 148°04'E, 0 


m alt., 2 Feb. 1984, G. Kantvilas 166/84 & P.W. James 
(HO); c. 1 km NW of Tinderbox, 43°03'S 147°19'E, 160 
m alt., 23 Jul. 2015, G. Kantvilas 253/15 (HO); “Wind 
Song’ Property, Ronnies Spur, 42°21'14"S 147°55'01"E, 
30 m alt., 25 Oct. 2017, G. Kantvilas 238/17 (HO); 
Cape Portland, Musselroe Wind Farm, woodland W of 
Xanthorrhoea Ridge, 40°47'53"S 148°01'08"E, 70 m alt., 
6 Nov. 2018, G. Kantvilas 365/18 (HO). 


Endocarpon crassisporum P.M.McCarthy & 
Filson 


With its grey-brown to reddish brown squamae, c. 2-10 mm 
wide, this species is superficially similar to E. simplicatum 
(Nyl.) Nyl., the most common species of Endocarpon in 
Tasmania. It is characterised by its consistently 1-spored 
asci and large, brown, muriform ascospores, 80-130 x 
(30-) 40-60 pm (see McCarthy 2001). It was found 
on consolidated, dolerite-derived soil in a very degraded 
coastal tussock grassland with extensive patches of bare soil 
and pebbles, a habitat consistent with its ecology on the 


Australian mainland. 


TASMANIA: Cape Portland, N of Semaphore Hill, 
40°45'S 147°57'E; 10 m alt., 8 Nov. 2018, G. Kantvilas 


252/18 (HO). 


Gyalecta pellucida (Coppins & Malcolm) 
Baloch & Licking 


This taxon was initially described in the genus Belonia by 
Coppins and Malcolm (1998) on account of its crustose 
thallus with a Trentepohlia photobiont, its pale pink, 
perithecioid apothecia, 0.2-0.3 mm wide, that have a 
proper exciple of rounded cells, thin-walled asci with a 
non-amyloid tholus but a thin, faintly amyloid wall, and 
acicular ascospores, 60-80 x 2.2-3(—4) um, with ¢. 35-45 
transverse septa. The genus Gyalecta in the traditional sense 
differs chiefly by having apothecioid ascomata witha plane to 
strongly concave or urceolate disc, and ellipsoid to fusiform, 
transeptate or muriform ascospores. The close relationship 
between these two genera was established by DNA-sequence 
data (Baloch et al. 2010). Gyalecta pellucida is an extremely 
inconspicuous species, very rare in Tasmania where it has 
been recorded from blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon)- or 
paper-bark (Melaleuca ericifolia)-dominated coastal swamps; 
it is also known from New Zealand. 


TASMANIA: Stanley Peninsula, c. 30 m E of Wells 
Road, 40°45'S 145°17'E, c. 50 m alt., 28 Feb. 1998, A. 
Gray s.n. (HO); Cape Portland, Musselroe Wind Farm, 
northern end of Musselroe Bay, 40°48'36"S 148°06'41"E, 
sea-level, 11 Sep. 2019, G. Kantvilas 239/19 (HO). 


Lecanora pseudogangaleoides Lumbsch 
subsp. pseudogangaleoides 


Characterised by a prominent, continuous, yellowish grey 
to greenish grey thallus containing atranorin, usnic acid and 


psoromic acid, and apothecia 0.5—1.3 mm wide, with a red- 
brown to black-brown disc and with large crystals, insoluble 
in KOH, in the margin; see Lumbsch and Elix (2004) fora 
complete description (plate 1D). The presence of psoromic 
acid, which distinguishes it from the very similar L. wilsonii 
Miill-Arg., can usually be detected by the P+ yellow reaction 
of the thallus. In Tasmania, this lichen is known only from 
outcrops of granite or quartzite in coastal heathland and dry 
sclerophyll woodland. It is also recorded from southeastern 
mainland Australia. 


TASMANIA: The Gnomon, 41°11'S 146°02'E, 475 m 
alt., 25 May 1991, G. Kantvilas 236/91 (HO); unnamed 
hill c. 1 km NE of Coles Bay township, 42°07'S 148°17'E, 
100 m alt., 23 Apr. 2007, G. Kantvilas 170/07 (HO); 
Cape Portland, Musselroe Wind Farm, “The Prairie”, in 
the vicinity of Turbine D14, 40°48'35"S 148°06'23"E, 
20 m alt., 11 Sep. 2019, G. Kantvilas 248/19, 251/19 
‘(CANB, HO). 


New records of lichens from Tasmania 5 


Lecanora strobilina (Spreng.) Kieff. 


Lecanora strobilina is a member of the L. symmicta group, 
and the latter name has been broadly applied in Australia 
to specimens that contain atranorin and zeorin and have 
yellowish to brownish biatorine apothecia. As noted in 


several studies of Australian specimens (e.g. Lumbsch & 


Elix 2004, Kantvilas & LaGreca 2008, Pérez-Ortega & 


Kantvilas 2018), the group is complex and individual taxa 


can be difficult to distinguish. Even so, several species of 
the L. symmicta group are recognised in Tasmania, namely 
L. helmutii Pérez-Ortega & Kantvilas, L. subtecta (Stirt.) 
Kantvilas & LaGreca and L. coppinsiarum Kanwvilas, as well 
as L. symmicta (Ach.) Ach. itself: Similar problems of species 
delimitation occur in the Northern Hemisphere (LaGreca 
& Lumbsch 2013), where L. strobilina is distinguished 
essentially by having apothecia with a persistent, crenulate 
thalline margin (plate 2A). 

The Lecanora symmicta group was well-represented 
in the Musselroe Bay survey and included: L. subtecta, 
distinguished by having bright yellow, often pruinose, 
biatorine apothecia; L. symmicta, with pale yellow, 


PLATE 2 — (A) Lecanora strobilina; note the apothecia with a persistent, crenulate, thalline margin. (B) Opegrapha spodopolia, 
with irregular, lirelliform apothecia with a central slit. (C) Physcia austrostellaris. (D) Ramonia absconsa, with tiny, semi-immersed 
apothecia with a central apical pore. Scales = 1 mm. 


6 — Gintaras Kantvilas, Brian J. Coppins, Patrick M. McCarthy and John A. Elix 


epruinose, biatorine apothecia; and a third entity with 
persistently lecanorine apothecia with a prominent crenulate 
margin. The name L. strobilina is applied to this last taxon, 
pending a more detailed review of the entire group. This 
lichen was observed frequently on bleached, split-eucalypt 
fenceposts and droppers in paddocks, as well as in patches 
of native vegetation where it grew on dead, standing wood. 


TASMANIA: Cape Portland, Musselroe Wind Farm: 
vicinity of Turbine D8, 40°47'38"S 148°05'24"E, 30 
m alt., 10 Sep. 2019, G. Kantvilas 252/19 (HO, MA); 
northern end of Musselroe Bay, 40°48'36"S 148°06'41"E, 
sea-level, 11 Sep. 2019, G. Kantvilas 232/19 (HO, MA); 
“Cadaver Ridge”, 40°48'28"S 148°04'05"E, 65 m alt., 11 
Sep. 2019, G. Kantvilas 224/19 (HO). 


Opegrapha niveoatra (Borrer) J.R.Laundon 


Characterised by simple, straight or curved lirellae, 0.4-1 
mm long, with a black, K+ olive exciple (in section), and 
(3—-)7-septate, acicular ascospores, 22—40 x 3.5—4 pm, with 
all cells + equal in size (Pentecost & James 2009, Kantvilas 
2019). In Tasmania, this + cosmopolitan species has been 
collected mainly on Melaleuca ericifolia and appears to have 
a widely scattered distribution in the State. 


TASMANIA: Passage Island, Bass Strait, 40°31'S 
148°19'E, 11 m alt., 11 Oct. 1979, J.S. Whinray 1331 
(MEL); Moores Hill, near Beaconsfield, 41°14'S 146°52'E, 
80 m alt., 27 Apr. 1981, G. Kantvilas 253/81 (HO); 
Westwood Road, 41°29'S 146°59'E, 150 m alt., 21 Sep 
2005, A.M. Buchanan 16307b (HO); Cape Portland, 
Musselroe Wind Farm, Tregaron Lagoons, “Copperhead 
Road”, 40°46'46"S 147°57'58"E, 2 m alt., 9 Nov. 2018, 
G. Kantvilas 324/18 (HO). 


Opegrapha spodopolia Nyl. 


This species is characterised by the following salient 
characters: thallus pale grey, cream-grey or fawn brown, 
occasionally somewhat scurfy; ascomata lirelliform, black, 
mostly 0.3—0.6 mm long and up to 0.4(-0.6) wide, mostly 
elongate but sometimes approximately as long as wide; 
exciple usually highly convoluted, contorted and sulcate, 
closed or gaping at the apex, invariably open at the base, 
in section K+ olive-greenish; hymenium inspersed with 
oil droplets, with a brown, K+ pale olive epihymenial 
layer; ascospores (4—)5—6(-7)-septate, 20-26(-30) x 4-6 
um, with a gelatinous perispore that swells in KOH and 
becomes roughened with age; conidia rod-shaped, 4-6 
x 0.5-1 pm (plate 2B). Originally described from New 
Zealand, this species was recently recorded from Kangaroo 
Island, South Australia (Kantvilas 2019). It is widespread 
along the coastlines.of Tasmania, occurring on a wide 
variety of rock types including dolerite, quartzite, granite, 
serpentiniteand mudstone. It grows in the rocky littoral zone 
in shaded sheltered overhangs. The genus Opegrapha is still 
poorly known in Tasmania. Many herbarium collections of 
saxicolous and corticolous species are yet to be identified, 


not least from coastal rocks. Features that best distinguish O. 
spodopolia are the basally open exciple and the dimensions 
and septation of the ascospores. 


TASMANIA: Sleepy Bay, 42°08'S 148°19'E, sea-level, 2 
Feb. 1984, G. Kantvilas 143/84 & P. James (BM, HO); 
Hibbs Pyramid, 42°36'S 145°16'E, 4 Feb. 1984, A. Moscal 
6128c (HO); Doctors Rocks, 41°01'S 145°47'E, sea-level, 
19 Feb. 1984, G. Kantvilas 391/84 & P. James (BM, H, 
HO); Lousy Gully, Curio Bay, 43°11'S 147°43'E, sea- 
level, 4 Feb. 2001, G. Kantvilas 154/01 (HO); Maingon 
Blowhole, 43°12'S 147°51'E, 40 m alt., 14 Oct. 2006, G. 
Kantvilas 359/06 (HO); Lion Rock, 43°36'S 146°49'E, 
sea-level, 27 Dec. 2007, G. Kantvilas 435/07 (HO); Mars 
Bluff, Bruny Island, 43°15'S 147°24'E, 5 m alt., 15 Mar. 
2008, G. Kantvilas 40/08; Lion Rock, 43°36'S 146°49'E, 
1 malt., 21 Apr. 2013, G. Kantvilas 34/13 (HO); mouth 
of Interview River, 41°35'S 144°53'E, 3 m alt., 31 Jan 
2015, G. Kantvilas 142/15 (HO); Goat Island, 41°08'S 
146°08'E, 5 m alt., 24 Oct. 2016, G. Kantvilas 388/16 
(HO); Cape Portland, Musselroe Wind Farm, shoreline 
near the Stone House, 40°45'S 148°01'E, 2 m alt., 9 
Noy. 2018, G. Kantvilas 151/18 (HO); Cape Portland, 
40°44'40"S 147°56'29"E, 2 m alt., 8 Nov. 2018, G. 
Kantvilas 261/18 (HO); northern end of Godfreys Beach, 
Stanley, 40°45'S 145°18'E, 1 m alt., 13 May 2019, G. 
Kantvilas 170/19 (HO). 


Opegrapha varia Pers. 


Characterised by relatively short lirellae with a K+ brown 
exciple, and the fusiform, 4—G-septate ascospores, 1 8-38 x 
6-8 pm, in which the central cell is noticeably enlarged. In 
Tasmania, this species has a scattered, coastal distribution 
and grows on wood or bark. It has been widely recorded 
throughout the world, including from mainland Australia. 
A detailed description is offered by Pentecost and James 


(2009). 


TASMANIA: Flinders Island, Cave Beach, 40°01'S 
147°53'E, 5 m alt., 23 Jan. 2006, G. Kantvilas 84/06 
(HO); Bonnet Island, Macquarie Harbour, 42°13'S 
145°13'E, 1 m alt., 14 May 2013, G. Kantvilas 144/13 
(HO); Flinders Island, The Dock, 39°48'S 147°52'E, 10 
m alt., 21 Mar. 2014, G. Kantvilas 298/14 (HO); Cape 
Portland, Musselroe Bay Conservation Area, Abalone 
Rocks, 40°47'26"S 148°06'08"E, 3 m alt., 7 Nov. 2018, 
G. Kantvilas 388/18 (HO) 


Physcia austrostellaris Elix 


Characterised by an essentially orbicular thallus, with 
radiating, + rounded, esorediate lobes to c. 2 mm wide at the 
margins, a pale brown to ivory under-surface, apothecia to 
2.5 mm wide, with a brown-black disc that is often thickly 
greyish pruinose, and by the presence of the triterpene, 
20a-acetoxyhopane-6a,22-diol, in addition to atranorin 
(plate 2C). Although found occasionally in dry sclerophyll 
vegetation, where it occurs on the bark of understorey trees 


such as Allocasuarina, or on wood or rocks, this species is 
most commonly seen on exotic trees in parks and along 
roadsides. The Musselroe Bay specimen was collected from 
dolerite boulders in an Allocasuarina verticillata-dominated 
woodland. In earlier literature pertaining to Australian 
lichens, this species was referred to as P stellaris (L.) Nyl., a 
name now applied strictly to a superficially similar Northern 
Hemisphere species that differs by having narrower lobes, 
often with secondary lobules in the centre of the thallus, 
numerous, simple or branched, whitish to dark brown or 
grey rhizines that often protrude beyond the lobe margins 
and lacks any triterpenes additional to atranorin (Elix er 
al. 2009). 


TASMANIA: Poatina, 41°48'S 146°58'E, 900 m alt., Jan. 
1964, G.C. Bratt 1315 (HO); Lake Tooms Road, 42°03'S 
147°30'E, 19 Dec. 1974, G.C. Bratt 74/1245 & M. Gilbert 
(HO); Reeves Creek, Picnic Rocks, 40°59'S 148°19'E, 20 
‘m alt., 13 Sep. 1983, A. Moscal 2668 (HO); Red Rocks, 
41°00'S 148°19'E, 20 malt., 19 Oct. 1983, A. Moscal 3646 
(HO); Campbell Town, 41°56'S 147°29'E, 14 Feb. 1984, 
G. Kantvilas 454/84 & P. James (BM, HO); Don Heads, 
41°10'S 146°20'E, 3 m alt., 27 May 1990, G. Kantvilas 
282/90 (HO); 2 km W of New Norfolk, Glenora Road, 
42°47'S 147°02'E, 90 m alt., 19 Feb. 1997, G. Kantvilas 
72/97 (HO); St Helens, 41°19'S 148°14'E, 10 m alt., 20 
Feb. 2001, G. Kantvilas 270/01 (HO); Evandale, edge 
of Rodgers Lane, 41°34'S 147°15'E, 160 m alt., 21 Mar. 
2001, J. Jarman s.2. (HO); Glen Esk Road near Middle 
Run Hill, 41°48'S 147°27'E, 220 m alt., 24 Aug. 2001, 
G. Kantvilas 755/01 (HO); Windmill Hill, Launceston, 
41°26'S 147°09'E, 18 Jul. 2001, J. Jarman s.7. (HO); 
Auburn Road, 42°00'S 147°19'E, 230 m alt., 12 Dec. 
2001, G. Kantvilas 1297/01 (HO); Mole Creek, 41°34'S 
146°24'E, 240 m alt., 2 Mar 2002, G. Kantvilas 141/02 
(HO); Cape Portland, Musselroe Wind Farm, woodland 
W of Xanthorrhoea Ridge, 40°47'53"S 148°01'08"E, 70 
m alt., 6 Nov. 2018, G. Kantvilas 357/18 (HO). 


Ramonia absconsa (Tuck.) Vézda 


This species is characterised by the following salient features: 
thallus crustose, effuse, very thin and patchy, pale grey- 
green, with a Trentepohlia photobiont; apothecia 0.3-0.5 
mm wide, at first immersed or semi-immersed and visible 


as a ‘bump’ in the thallus, pierced by a minute central ~ 


pore with a grey rim, emergent when mature, becoming 
globose to hemispherical, with a dark brown, strongly 
incurved, radially split proper exciple, and a central pore 
to c. 0.15 mm wide, revealing a pale grey, urceolate disc; 
exciple in section cupulate, hyaline to brown, composed of 
thomboidal or subglobose, parenchymatous cells 3-7 um 
wide and lined along the inner edge with periphyses 5-10 
x 2-3 um; asci 32-spored, of the Gyalecta-type, with a thin, 
KI+ blue wall and non-amyloid, poorly developed tholus; 
ascospores (12) 13—19(—20) x 5—6.5(—7) um, 3(—5)-septate, 
ellipsoid, blunt or acute at the apices, with a gelatinous 
perispore (plate 2D). 


New records of lichens from Tasmania 7 


This is a remarkable discovery for Tasmania, based 
on a single collection from the papery bark of an old 
Melaleuca ericifolia in a lowland, coastal swamp. Prior to 
this collection, it was known only from the type specimen, 
collected in the nineteenth century from the bark of maple 
in South Carolina, U.S.A. (Vézda 1966, 1967). 


TASMANIA: Cape Portland, Musselroe Wind Farm, 
‘Tregaron Lagoons, 40°46'55"S_ 147°58'09"E, 2 m alt., 
2019, G. Kantvilas 230/19 (E, HO). 


Trapelia concentrica Elix & P.M.McCarthy 


Recently described from New South Wales and the A.C.T. 
by Elix and McCarthy (2019), this species is characterised 
by a thallus of minute, highly dispersed, scabrid areoles to 
0.3 mm wide, scattered apothecia to c. 0.5 mm wide, and 
ascospores. 11-17 x 6-10 pm. Elix and McCarthy (2019) 
compare it to 7° crystallifera Kantvilas and Elix, which in 
Tasmania occurs exclusively on soil. However, the single 
Tasmanian specimen of 7) concentrica is from rock, and 
is therefore more likely to be confused with the common, 
widespread and highly variable 7. coarctata (Sm.) M.Choisy. 


It grew on dolerite pebbles in a highly degraded tussock 
grassland. 


TASMANIA: Cape Portland, N of Semaphore Hill, 
40°45'S 147°57'E, 10 m alt., 8 Nov. 2018, G. Kantvilas 
253/18B (HO). 

The genus Trapelia in Tasmania is complex and 
requires considerable further study. An additional, as yet 
unidentified species was also collected at the study site 
(Kantvilas 226/19; HO). It grew on consolidated soil and 
had scattered, sorediate squamules containing gyrophoric 
acid, and ascospores 24-31 x 12-17 ym. 


Xanthoparmelia xerica (Elix) Elix 


Characterised by an almost subcrustose, grey or blackened 
thallus of minute, tightly adnate lobes, mostly only to 
0.1 mm wide, which become rather spidery at the thallus 
margins, with a pale brown underside, sparse, globose 
isidia and containing atranorin and stictic acid. Previously 
known only from the type locality on the Eyre Peninsula, 
South Australia, this rare lichen was collected in Tasmania 
on a granite boulder in coastal scrubby heathland. It 
could potentially be confused with the very common and 
widespread X. mougeotinaand_X. xanthomelaenawith which 
it grows, both of which contain stictic acid but differ by 
also containing usnic acid instead of atranorin, and have a 
black under-side; the latter differs further in lacking isidia. 


TASMANIA: Cape Portland, Musselroe Wind Farm, 
“The Prairie”, in the vicinity of Turbine D14, 40°48'35"S 
148°06'23"E, 20 m alt., 5 Nov. 2018, G. Kantvilas 210/18 
(HO). 


8 — Gintaras Kantvilas, Brian J. Coppins, Patrick M. McCarthy and John A. Elix 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 


The 2018 TMAG Expedition of Discovery was generously 
supported by Woolnorth Wind Farm Holding Pty Ltd and 
the Friends of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. Jean 
Jarman prepared the images that accompany this paper. 


REFERENCES 


Baker, M., Grove, S., de Salas, M., Byrne, C., Cave, L., Bonham, 
K., Moore, K. & Kantvilas G. 2019: Tasmanian Museum 
and Art Gallery’s Expedition of Discovery 1 - The flora 
and fauna of Wind Song, Little Swanport, Tasmania. Papers 

_ and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 153: 5-30. 

Baloch, E., Liicking, R., Lumbsch. H.T. & Wedin, M. 2010: Major 
clades and phylogenetic relationships between lichenized 
and non-lichenized lineages in Ostropales (Ascomycota: 
Lecanoromycetes). Taxon 59: 1483-1494. 

Coppins, B.J. & Malcolm, W.M. 1998: A new Belonia from 
New Zealand and a second record of B. mediterranea. 
Lichenologist 30: 563-566. 

Degelius, G. 1974: The lichen genus Collema with special 
reference to the extra-European species. Symbolae Botanicae 
Upsalienses 20(2): 1-215. 

Ekman, S. 1996: The corticolous and lignicolous species of Bacidia 
and Bacidina in North America. Opera Botanica 127: 1-148. 

Elix, J.A. 2014: A Catalogue of Standardized Chromatographic Data 
and Biosynthetic Relationships for Lichen Substances. Third 
Edition. Canberra: published by the author. 

Elix, J.A. & Kantvilas, G. 2013: New taxa and new records of 
Buellia sensu lato (Physciaceae, Ascomycota) in Australia. 
Australasian Lichenology 73: 24-44. 

Elix, J.A. & McCarthy, PM. 2019: Tiapelia concentrica (lichenized 
Ascomycota, Trapeliaceae), a new species from south-eastern 
Australia, with a key to the genus in Australia. Australasian 
Lichenology 85: 46-50. 

Elix, J.A., Corush, J. & Lumbsch, H.T. 2009: Triterpene 
chemosyndromes and subtle morphological characters 
characterise lineages in the Physcia aipolia group 
in Australia (Ascomycota). Systematics and Biodiversity 7: 
479-487. 

Elix, J.A., Kantvilas, G. & McCarthy, PM. 2017: Thirteen 
new species and a key to buellioid lichens (Caliciaceae, 
Ascomycota) in Australia. Australasian Lichenology 81: 
26-67. 

Elix, J.A., Kantvilas, G. & McCarthy, P.M. 2019a: Two new species 
of Rinodina (Physciaceae, Ascomycota) from southern 
Australia. Australasian Lichenology 84: 10-15. 

Elix, J.A., Kantvilas, G., McCarthy, P.M. & Archer, A.W. 2019b: 
Additional lichen records from Australia. Australasian 
Lichenology 84: 55-71. 

Gilbert, O.L., James, PW. & Purvis, O.W. 2009: Collema 
EH. Wigg. (1780). Jn Smith, C.W., Aptroot, A., Coppins, 
B.J., Fletcher, A., Gilbert, O.L., James, PW. & Wolseley, 
PA. (eds): The Lichens of Great Britain and Ireland, London, 
British Lichen Society: 345-357. 

Hafeliner, J. 1984: Studien in Richtung einer natiirlicheren 
Gliederung der Sammelfamilien Lecanoraceae und 
Lecideaceae. Beiheft zur Nova Hedwigia 79: 241-371. 


Jarman, S.J. & Kantvilas, G. 1994: Lichens and bryophytes of 
the Tasmanian World Heritage Area. II. Three forest sites 
at Pelion Plains. Zasforests 6: 103-120. 

Jarman, S.J. & Kantvilas, G. 1995: A floristic study of rainforest 
bryophytes and lichens in Tasmania’s myrtle-beech alliance. 
Tasmanian NRCP Report No. 14. Forestry Tasmania and 
Department of Environment, Sport & Territories, Canberra. 

Kantvilas, G. 1989: A checklist of Tasmanian lichens. Papers and 
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 123: 67-85. 

Kantvilas, G. 1994: A revised checklist of the Tasmanian lichen 
flora. Muelleria 8: 155-175. 

Kantvilas, G. 2012: The genus Menegazzia (Lecanorales: 
Parmeliaceae) in Tasmania revisited. Lichenologist 
44: 189-246. 

Kantvilas, G. 2019: An annotated catalogue of the lichens 
of Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Swainsona 32: 
NOY/, 

Kantvilas, G. & Coppins, B.J. 2019: Studies on Micarea in 
Australasia II. A synopsis of the genus in Tasmania, with the 
description of ten new species. Lichenologist 51: 431-481. 

Kantvilas, G. & Jarman, S.J. 2012: Lichens and bryophytes in 
Tasmanian wet eucalypt forest: floristics, conservation 
and ecology. Phytotaxa 59: 1-31. 

Kantvilas, G. & LaGreca, S. 2008: Lecanora subtecta, an Australian 
species in the Lecanora symmicta group. Muelleria 26: 72-76. 

Kantvilas, G., Jarman, S.J. & McCaffrey, N. 2012: A contribution 
to the flora of the Meredith Range, north-western Tasmania. 
Kanunnah 5: 127-140. 

LaGreca, §. & Lumbsch. H.T. 2013: Taxonomic investigations 
of Lecanora strobilina and L. symmicta (Lecanoraceae, 
Lecanorales) in northeastern North America. The Bryologist 
116: 287-295. 

Lumbsch, H.T. & Elix, J.A. 2004: Lecanora. Flora of Australia 
56A: 12-62. 

Mangold, A., Elix, J.A. & Lumbsch, H.T. 2009: Thelotremataceae. 
Flora of Australia 57: 195-420. 

McCarthy, P.M. 2001: Endocarpon. Flora of Australia 58A: 161-167. 

McCarthy, PM. 2020: Checklist of the Lichens of Australia and its 
Island Territories. Australian Biological Resources Study, 
Canberra. Version 1, March 2020. http://www.anbg.gov. 

au/abrs/lichenlist/introduction.html. 

McCarthy, P.M. & Kantvilas, G. 2018: Anisomeridium disjunctum 
(Monoblastiaceae), a new lichen species from Tasmania, with 
a key to the genus in Australia. Australasian Lichenology 
83: 54-60. 

Pentecost, A. & James, P.W. 2009: Opegrapha Ach. (1809). Jn 
Smith, C.W., Aptroot, A., Coppins, B.J., Fletcher, A., 
Gilbert, O.L., James, PW. & Wolseley, PA. (eds): The 
Lichens of Great Britain and Ireland, London, British Lichen 
Society: 631-647. 

Pérez-Ortega, S. & Kantvilas, G. 2018: Lecanora helmutii, a new 
species from the Lecanora symmicta group from Tasmania. 
Herzogia 31 (1) Teil 2: 639-649. 

Vézda, A. 1966: Flechtensystematische Studien III. Die Gattungen 
Ramonia Stiz. und Gloeolecta Lett. Folia Geobotanica et 
Phytotaxonomica Praha 1: 154-175. 

Vézda, A. 1967: Flechtensystematische Studien V. Die Gattung 
Ramonia Stiz. Zusatze. Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica 
Praha 2: 311-317. 

Wetmore, C.M. 1963: Catalogue of the lichens of Tasmania. Revue 
Cryptogamie Bryologique et Lichénologique 32: 223-264. 


(accepted 15 July 2020) 


Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 154, 2020 


POTENTIAL POLLEN VECTORS OF THE MASS FLOWERING TREE ACACIA 
DEALBATA, WITHIN ITS NATURAL RANGE IN SOUTHERN TASMANIA 


by A. Rod Griffin, Andrew B. Hingston, Christopher E. Harwood, Jane L. Harbard, Michael J. Brown, 
Kristi M. Ellingsen and Catherine M. Young 


(with three figures, three plates, six tables and two appendices) 


Griffin, A.R., Hingston, A.B., Harwood, C.E., Harbard, J.L., Brown, M.J., Ellingsen, K.M. & Young, C.M. 2020 (9:xii): Potential 
pollen vectors of the mass flowering tree Acacia dealbata, within its natural range in southern Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the 
Royal Society of Tasmania 154: 9-26. ISSN 0080-4703. Discipline of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 55, 
Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia (RG*, CEH, JLH, CMY); Discipline of Geography and Spatial Sciences, University of Tasmania, 
Private Bag 78, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia (ABH); 211 Channel Highway, Taroona, Tasmania 7006, Australia (MJB); 16 
Auvergne Avenue, Mount Stuart, Tasmania 7000, Australia (KME). *Author for correspondence: Email: rodgriffin@iinet.net.au 


In Tasmania, Acacia dealbata flowers from July to September when weather conditions are non-conducive to activity by the insects which 
are generally considered to be major pollinators of the genus. This paper examines the presence and behaviour of insect and bird visitors 
as potential pollen vectors. Very few insects were observed to visit the flowers. However, several bird species fed on the flower-heads and 
foraged for small invertebrates inhabiting the blossoms. These feeding behaviours resulted in adhesion of pollen to feathers likely to be 
transferred from one genet to another as birds moved. During feeding, rosellas were observed to not only ingest flower-heads but the 
presence of branchlet clip under 57% of A. dealbata trees surveyed is evidence of the widespread occurrence of these species foraging on 
flowers. However, given the profusion of flowers and the small numbers of birds observed, it is difficult to conclude that birds are wholly 
responsible for outcross pollination and we discuss the possibility that wind may also be an important pollen vector. Although the floral 
attributes of A. dealbata are more aligned with insect pollination, we failed to definitively identify any one major pollinator of the species 


in this environment and suggest that the pollination syndrome may most accurately be described as generalist. 
Key Words: Acacia dealbata, pollination syndrome, bird pollination, insect pollination, wind pollination, mass flowering. 


INTRODUCTION 


Silver Wattle (Acacia dealbata) is native to southeastern 
Australia with a range extending from Tasmania and western 
Victoria to northern New South Wales. It is common in 
forest and woodland communities in Tasmania from sea 
level to.900 m, and dominates many transitional forests 
on disturbed sites (Kitchener & Harris 2013), varying in 
size from a low shrub on dry sites to a tall tree over 25 m 
in height on deep soils in wetter sites (Boland eg al. 2006). 
The species has also been widely planted outside Australia 
for ornamental purposes, perfumery and fuelwood (Griffin 
etal. 2011) and has a reputation for weediness via both seed 
and root suckering (Gibson et a/. 2011, Fuentes-Ramirez er 
al. 2011, Montesinos et al. 2016). Because of the tendency 
to sucker (Nghiem e¢ al. 2018), pollen transfer between 
trees is not always an outcrossing event and we use the term 
‘genet’ to indicate trees of different genotype. 

The species produces a spectacular display of bright 
yellow flowers from July to September, a time of year 
characterised by low temperatures with frequent strong 
winds and rain, not conducive to insect flight activity. 
However, substantial pollen transfer between genets is 
presumed to occur as Broadhurst e¢ al. (2008) found that 
seed from elsewhere within the natural range was highly 
outcrossed. The vector(s) mediating such cross-pollination 
in Tasmanian populations are by no means obvious. 

According to the pollination syndrome hypothesis, 
convergent evolution may lead to unrelated plants sharing 


the same suite of floral traits when they are pollinated by the 
same abiotic or functional group of biotic vectors (Faegri & 
van der Pijl 1979, Rosas-Guerrero et al. 2014). For biotic 
pollinators, floral traits include rewarding (e.g. nectar and 
pollen) and non-rewarding attractants (e.g. floral colour, 
shape and scent), while the wind-pollination syndrome 
is typically associated with an absence of attractants, the 
flowers being nectarless and lacking bright colours and 
scent (Faegri & van der Pijl 1979, Sedgley & Griffin 1989). 

Acacia species are generally considered to be pollinated 
by insects, particularly bees (Bernhardt ‘1989, Stone et al. 
2003), but the floral traits do not map tightly onto any 
of the major pollinator syndromes as defined by Faegri 
and van der Pijl (1979). In terms of gross morphology, 


_ the flowers are remarkably uniform, a characteristic feature 


being the prominence of anther filaments which generally 
determine the shape, size and (generally yellow) colour of 
the flower-heads, which may be globose to spicate (Kendrick 
2003). The number of individual flowers per head and 
heads per inflorescence are variable and all may not be 
perfect. Pollen is aggregated into polyads containing 4<32 
grains. The flowers do not produce nectar and while extra- 
floral nectaries are generally present (Boughton 1981), in 
many species, including A.dealbata, they are only vestigial 
(Marazzi et al. 2019) and offer no reward to visitors. Low 
reproductive success is also a characteristic of the genus 
with typically less than one pod produced per flower-head 
(Wandrag et al. 2015). Nevertheless, because of the large 
number of flowers per tree, individuals may produce several 


10 AR. Griffin, A.B. Hingston, CE. Harwood, J.L. Harbard, M.J. Brown, K.M. Ellingsen and C.M. Young 


thousand seeds/m?/yr! (Gibson et al. 2011) which can 
remain viable in the soil for many decades. 

Although birds are not considered to be major pollinators 
of Acacia (Ford et al. 1979), there are examples of birds 
feeding on or within flowering crowns of several species 
(Sargent 1928, Ford & Forde 1976, Knox et al. 1985, 
Vanstone & Paton 1988), raising the possibility of a role 
as pollen vectors. The possibility of wind pollination was 
not considered in earlier reviews of the pollination ecology 
of the genus (Bernhardt 1989, Stone er al. 2003) but there 
is sufficient evidence to suggest at least a contribution 
to gene flow. Polyads have been collected downwind of 
A.mearnsii trees (Moncur et al. 1991, Kendrick 2003); 
Smart and Knox (1979) found Acacia polyads in the 
atmosphere over Melbourne during spring; and allergy to 
airborne Acacia pollen has been reported from a number 
of countries (Ariano et al. 1991). A recent experimental 
study of A. longifolia in Portugal found that seed set was 
enhanced when flowers were exposed to wind (Giovanetti 
et al. 2018). 

The effectiveness of any particular flower visitor as an 
outcrossing agent is a function of its morphology and 
behaviour (affecting the probability of collecting pollen 
during the course of feeding and of deposition on flowers 
of a different genet) and of population size relative to the 
number of flowers produced by the host plant population. 
Together these variables determine the potential flux of 
pollen between trees (Griffin et al. 2009). For effective 
pollination the pollen must obviously be viable when 


deposited, so it is important to understand the temporal 
decay in viability post-anthesis. As a contribution to 
understanding the pollination ecology of A.dealbata, this 
paper reports an observational study of the presence and 
behaviour of the diurnal visitors to the crowns of trees 
in natural populations near Hobart, Tasmania. It also 
considers the possibility of wind pollination and tentative 
conclusions are drawn regarding all the relative importance 
of the potential vectors in effecting outcrossing. 


MATERIALS AND METHODS 
Reproductive characteristics of A. dealbata 


Flowers are arranged in globose heads which, when the 
filaments are fully expanded, measure about 9 mm wide by 
8 mm long with a fresh weight of 20 mg (Griffin unpubl. 
data). The number of individual flowers per head varies 
between 22 and 42 (Roger & Johnson 2013, Correia et al. 
2014) with varying numbers being male only. Each flower 
has an average of 33 stamens (Correia et al, 2014). Heads 
are arranged in axillary racemes or false panicles on branch 
apices which collectively form a highly visible mass blossom 
(pl. 1) and Figure 1 in Nghiem et a/. (2018). Pollen is 
aggregated into 16 grain polyads which average 46 pm in 
diameter (Nghiem et al. 2018). The flowers do not produce 
nectar and the extra-floral nectaries are vestigial (Marazzi 
et al. 2019) and offer no reward. The low fruit:flower ratio 


PLATE 1 — Flowering (26/8/18) and corresponding mature pod crop (1/1/19) on adjacent trees at Site 4. The bright yellow colour 
of Tree 4 (left) indicates it was in full flower, while Tree 5 (right) was past the peak. Both the flowers and resulting pod crops were 
distributed uniformly from the topmost branches to the lowest in the crown on each tree (photos J. Harbard). 


Potential pollen vectors of the mass flowering tree Acacia dealbata, within its natural range in southern Tasmania 11 


=> 
i, 
oO 


Oo 
oo 
ro) 


Brown Thornbills 


a Green Rosellas 
0.60 


0.40 


0.20 


No. of birds/no. of obs. periods 


0 20 40 60 80 100 80 60 40 20 0 
Flowering phenology (%) 
22 16 6 4 5 2 3 3 0 9 Uf 
Total no. of observation periods for each phenology stage 


FIG. 1 — Ratios of total number of birds sighted on A. dealbata crowns to total number of observation periods at each flowering 
phenology stage, summed across the five observation points at Knocklofty, for Brown Thornbills and Green Rosellas. Numbers above 


each bar show the total number of birds sighted for each phenology stage. Flowering phenology scored as the proportion of flowers 
judged to be fully open on a scale of 0 (pre- and post-flowering) to 5 at peak flowering. 


of the species aligns with the rest of the genus. In Portugal, 
Correia et al. (2014) reported fruit developed from only 
0.7% of the total number of flowers observed. In South 
Africa, Rodger and Johnson (2013) reported that after open 
pollination 14% of A. dealbata flower-heads matured one or 
more fruit while, fora range of natural populations in NSW, 
infructescences per flower-head varied between 0.03<0.31, 
(Broadhurst & Young 2006, Wandrag e¢ al. 2014). 


the foothills of kunanyi/Mount Wellington to the west of 
Hobart, where A. dealbatais presentasa result of regeneration 
following fire or other disturbance, although the density and 
age class structures differ, with likely effects on the pool of 
potential pollinations. All are within 15 km of Site 1 and 
between 50-300 m elevation (Site 1 is at 220 m). 


Floral phenology 
Observation sites It is highly probable that the state of flower development 
within a tree crown affects desirability as a food source for 
visiting animals, so we characterised this for each observation 
date. In A. dealbata there isa gradual colour change associated 
with flower opening, from pale to brighter yellow and then 
paler again past the peak. Each time observations were made, 


The core study was conducted at the Knocklofty Reserve 
near Hobart (Site 1) but we also report data collected from 
a number of other sites within the region (table 1). All sites 
can broadly be regarded as part of a single ecosystem in 


TABLE 1 — Observation sites 


Site Location Latitude S Longitude E Elevation Distance Data collected 
No. : (m asl) from Site 1 
(km) 
1 Knocklofty Reserve ~ 42°53'07" 147°18'07" 220 - Bird and invertebrate 
observation, mist netting 
2 Mt Nelson 42°54'48" 147°19'23" 140 3.7 Bird observation 
Lower Longley 42°58'20" 147°11'41" 200 14.5 Bird observation 
Turnip Fields Rd 42°54'51" 147°16'20" 300 3.6 Wind dispersal, seed 
: ; production 
5 Waterworks Reserve 42°54'32" 147°16'12" 160 2.4 Mist netting birds 
6 BOM Station 094029 42°53'20" 147°19'34" 50 1.5 Meteorological data 


Ellerslie Rd, Hobart 


12 AR. Griffin, A.B. Hingston, CE. Harwood, J.L. Harbard, MJ. Brown, K.M. Ellingsen and C.M. Young 


the flowering state of each tree at each Observation Point 
(OP) was placed in one of 11 categories according to the 
percentage of heads which were fully open, from 0 < 100% 
(peak flowering) at 20 percentile intervals reducing from 
this peak date to 0%, again in 20 percentile steps, as the 
proportion of open heads declined over time. Individual 
trees thus moved through a progression from 0% to peak 
(100%) flowering and back to 0%. An average score was 
then calculated for all trees at each bird OP at each study 
site on each date. For the invertebrate study there was only 
one target tree at each OP and for results presentation we 
averaged values over the four trees observed on each visit date. 


Meteorological data 


A basic tenet of the study was that the pollination ecology 
of winter/spring flowering A. dealbata may differ from many 
other Acacia species which flower at warmer times of the year, 
so we documented the ambient weather conditions through 
the flowering period using data from the Australian Bureau 
of Meteorology Station 094029 at Ellerslie Rd, Hobart 
(table 1) for the study period June-Sept 2018 (Bureau of 
Meteorology 2018). 


Invertebrates visiting or resident 
within the blossom 


Four trees at Site 1 were chosen for study. The locality, 
described by Nghiem etal. (2018), is dry sclerophyll eucalypt 
woodland dominated by Eucalyptus globulusand E. viminalis, 
with an understorey of A. dealbata and other species, but is 
known to have been more open in the past, with a complex 
history of degradation and revegetation (Harwood et al, 
2018). Each tree was flowering heavily at a height that was 
easily accessible from the ground. Observations were made 
on nine days between 30 June 2018 prior to flowering and 
18 September, when flowering was completed. Observation 
days were chosen as being dry and without strong winds, 
since we expected insect activity to be low under less 
favourable conditions. For one 10-minute period per tree 
per observation day we recorded larger flying insects which 
could be potential pollen vectors. An observer stood close to 
a heavily flowering part of the crown and noted the number 
of each taxon which came into view. Where there was some 
doubt about identification, samples were collected for later 
examination or in some cases photographed in situ. Where 
. possible, identification was made to the Family level but, 
with the exception of bees and Syrphid flies, which Bernhardt 
(1987) considered to be particularly important vectors of 
Acacia pollen, summary at the level of Order was considered 
sufficient to meet the study objectives. 

We also sampled the small invertebrates living among 
the inflorescences which represent a potential food source 
for foraging birds. On each sample day four different 
flowering branches on each tree were sharply beaten with 
a 40-cm stick, at an approximate foliage height of 150°cm. 
A container held immediately below the branches collected 
the organisms which were dislodged. In order to minimise 
loss of flying insects the container was fitted with a flexible 


plastic cover which could be removed and replaced with 
minimum delay for each of the collections. The pooled 
contents were then inspected and numbers of each taxon 
counted. Since a few of the more vigorous flyers (mainly 
Diptera and Hymenoptera) did escape during the counting 
process there is some bias associated with the method. 
However, the more stationary invertebrates are presumed 
the more likely food for birds, so we do not consider this 
a critical issue. Where identification was difficult, a digital 
photographic image was taken for immediate inspection or 
in some cases later consultation of databases. The camera 
used was a Canon EOS6D, with Canon MPE65 mm 
macro lens and Macro twin lite MT-26EX-RT, permitting 
identifiable images of invertebrates greater than around 2 
mm in length. In order to judge whether the invertebrate 
fauna was different on flowering and non-flowering trees, 
on four of the observation days we also beat the foliage 
of an entirely vegetative tree growing next to Tree 1. Our 
capacity to identify the various taxa increased from Species, 
Genus, Family to Order. For the purposes of this paper we 
were primarily interested in determining the diversity of 
organisms over the flowering season and presentation at the 
level of Order was considered sufficient. More detailed data 
to Family level are provided in appendix 1, where we also 
indicate the developmental stage observed, since some taxa 
were present in a range of immature states (as determined 
from morphology and/or size) as well as adult form. 


Bird visitors 


At Site 1, five fixed OPs were chosen within an area 
approximately 250 m by 150 m. Each OP gave an 
uninterrupted view of 1-5 mature A. dealbata trees from a 
viewing position next toa nearby tree or shrub that provided 


- cover for the observers. Observations were made on 18 


days during the period from 26 June (about 2 weeks prior 
to first anthesis) to 29 September 2018 by which time all 
flowering had finished. Data were collected by either one or 
two experienced bird observers with binoculars and cameras. 
Intervals between the observation days averaged 5.8 days 
but ranged from 3 to 10 days, depending on the availability 
of observers and weather conditions. 

A second series of observations over the flowering season 
(26 July to 19 September 2018) was made by another 
observer at Site 2 (table 1). Ten OPs were selected, seven 
located within low dry sclerophyll forest with many 
flowering A. dealbata stems 2-8 m high originating from 
a past fire event and three in suburban settings near the 
forest but within 20 m of buildings that included 1-4 
larger A. dealbata trees. The number of observations at 
each OP ranged from 17 to 31. 

A third data set was collected at Site 3 (table 1). 
Observations were made on a total of ten days between 
2 August to 12 October 2018 at a single OP adjacent to 
a row of five large roadside A. dealbata trees on a lightly 
wooded rural property surrounded by wet sclerophyll forest. 

At all sites, observations commenced between 7.30 
am to 3 pm, with the majority of observations made in 
the mornings. Periods of the day with very high winds 


Potential pollen vectors of the mass flowering tree Acacia dealbata, within its natural range in southern Tasmania 13 


(terrestrial Beaufort scale >7, large trees-in motion) and/ 
or heavy all-day rain were excluded. Ambient temperatures 
at the time of observation were mostly within the range 
10-15°C. A point count of ten minutes was made at 
each OP. During each count, all bird species visible 
from the OP, or identified from their nearby calls, were 
recorded. The numbers of birds of each species that 
alighted on the A. dealbata trees under observation, and 
the numbers that moved between A. dealbata trees, were 
recorded. At Sites 1 and 2 the behaviour of birds in A. 
dealbata tree crowns was noted and each visit recorded 
as either feeding on inflorescences; contacting flowers; or 
perching. The frequency of visits by birds that foraged on 
or among inflorescences of A. dealbata in relationship to 
flowering phenology stages was examined by calculating 
the proportions of visits to observation periods for each 
phenological stage. 


Indirect evidence of rosella feeding 


It was noted that where Green Rosellas (Platycercus 
caledonicus) had been feeding on A. dealbata flower-heads, 
the ground under the tree was often littered with freshly 
clipped flower-bearing branchlets, each severed with a 
characteristic clean diagonal cut (pl. 2). This provided an 
indirect measure of activity. To estimate the proportion of 
trees where this type of feeding had occurred, we inspected 
the ground under A. dealbata trees at nine regional locations 
where many trees were in heavy flower and there was relatively 
little undergrowth. Surveyed trees were classified as either 


plus or minus evidence of rosella feeding (three or more 
clipped branchlets found under the crown were classified 
as plus). Results were expressed as percentage of trees with 
evidence of rosella feeding. It was not possible to judge the 
time the material had been on the ground and when the 
feeding had occurred, so we cannot say whether one or more 


feeding events were involved. 


Pollen carried by birds 


For a bird to be an effective outcross pollen vector there 
must be transfer of polyads from anthers to the bird during 
the course of a feeding event and from thence to stigmas on 
another genet. To obtain relevant data we mist-netted bush 
birds from 7:00 to 11:00 am at Sites 1 and 5 (table 1) while 
the A. dealbata were flowering. Site 5 was first sampled on 
22 July, early in the flowering season, with many more trees 
flowering during the subsequent visit one month later. At 
Site 1 nets were set near two of the four bird OPs on three 
occasions at approximately weekly intervals around the peak 
flowering season in August. 

To obtain a pollen swab, doubled-sided tape was applied 
to a glass microscope slide and, while the bird was still 
in the mist net (that is before pollen could be rubbed 
or shaken off), the slide was applied sequentially to the 
head, beak, feet and chest feathers. Slides were observed 
through a compound microscope at 400x magnification, 
viewing transects across the slide until the whole slide had 
been observed. Total number of polyads was recorded and 
classified to at least the Family level. 


PLATE 2 — Green Rosella feeding on flower-heads from a clipped branchlet of A. dealbata (photo M. Brown). 


14 AR. Griffin, A.B. Hingston, C.E. Harwood, J.L. Harbard, M.J. Brown, K.M. Ellingsen and CM. Young 


Pollen viability on feathers 


It was not possible to directly determine viability of pollen 
carried by birds so we conducted a simulated trial. An 
equal number of flower-heads was harvested from each of 
four trees at Site 4 and mixed prior to pollen extraction. 
Since anthers were closed, the flower-heads were left under 
lights for 30 minutes causing dehiscence and exposure of 
the polyads. Flowers were then placed in an Endecotts test 
sieve with a 63 um stainless steel mesh over a petri dish 
containing clean feathers from a mist-netted Crescent 
Honeyeater (Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus). Gentle rubbing 
separated the polyads from the anthers which settled on 
the feathers. These were left in a petri dish in an unheated 
room (temperature range 6—11°C) which was within the 
range of outside air temperatures over the observation 
period (Bureau of Meteorology 2018). At intervals between 
0 and 17 days, a sample of polyads was collected by gently 
scraping a dissecting needle over the feathers onto a petri 
dish containing 1% agar, 20% sucrose and 0.01% boric 
acid kept at the same ambient temperature. Preliminary 
experiments determined that maximum germination of 
fresh polyads was achieved after 48 h so this was set as the 
test period. Viability was assessed by viewing pollen tube 
growth on the nutrient agar at 160x magnification with an 
inverted Nikon microscope; 100 polyads were observed on 
each occasion. A polyad was counted as viable if one or more 
pollen tubes had germinated and the length was greater than 
the diameter of the polyad. On Day 3, as germination rate 
had obviously slowed, the dish was inspected again at 72 h. 
From Day 7, in order to achieve maximum germination, 
petri dishes were transferred to a growth room at a higher 
temperature (15—23°C). 


Wind dispersion of flower-heads 


From casual observation it was evident that whole flower- 
heads detached rather easily in windy conditions and 
were frequently seen on the ground among the trees. It is 
possible to extract viable pollen from such heads (J. Harbard 
unpubl. data 2018) so this may be regarded as a possible 
pollen dispersal mechanism. Following a particularly 
windy week we documented the dispersal of heads away 
from a forest margin at Site 4. Three parallel transects were 
laid out across grassland and all heads within a 0.75 m2 
wooden frame were counted at 1.5 m intervals out from below 
_ the edge of the canopy to a distance of 50 m. Counts were 
then converted to a per 1 m2 basis and plotted against 
distance. 


Pod and seed production 


In parallel with this study we have also made a detailed 
investigation of the floral biology and seed production of 
this Acacia species. Full details will to be reported elsewhere, 
but we present some information which, in conjunction 
with the observed activity of potential pollen vectors, assists 
inference regarding the overall level of outcross pollination. 

If the species is strongly outcrossing and only sets pods 


after pollination by biotic vectors, we postulate that the 
pattern of pod set should be patchy because at the visit 
frequencies we report in this paper it is unlikely, for both 
stochastic and micro-environmental reasons, that pod set 
would be even across the whole crown of a tree. We could 
not quantify such pattern in pod set but we are able to 
present photographic evidence of trees in full flower and 
again at pod maturation (pl. 1). 

The literature suggests that outcrossed flowers of A. 
dealbata produce a higher number of full seed per pod 
than selfs (Rodger & Johnson 2013, Correia et al. 2014), 
so full seeds per pod may be taken as a rough indication 
of the level of outcrossing. We determined this trait for 
pods harvested from the top, middle and bottom of 
crowns of five trees at Site 4. These trees ranged in total 
height from 12-24 m. Two separate samples of pods at 
each level, ranging in number from 48 to over 500, were 
dried to open and all seeds extracted and classified as one 
of four categories: (1) full, black 5 mm; (2) full, brown 5 
mm; (3) small, black 3 mm; (4) vestigial, < 2 mm. The 
total number was counted but only category 1 considered 
to be good seed. The numbers of total and good seed per 
pod were then calculated together with the proportion of 
good seed as a percentage of total seed. The data sets for 
these three variates were analysed using ANOVA, with 
tree and height level as the treatment factors in factorial 
combination. 


RESULTS 


The trees at Site 1 flowered over 76 days between 16 July 
and 29 September with a’ median date for peak flowering 
of 24 August The mean number of days that a tree carried 


_ some open flowers was 51 and, although there was variation 


among trees, no genets were fully temporally isolated. 

During the flowering period the mean minimum and 
maximum daily temperatures at the Bureau of Meteorology 
(Ellerslie Rd site) were 6.4°C and 15.1°C. Mean temperature 
at 9 am was 9.5°C rising to 13.1°C at 3 pm; at that time 
mean wind speed was 31 km h7! with a maximum of 71 
kmh and a mean relative humidity of 53.5% (minimum 
25%). During the flowering season a total of 91.6 mm 
of rain fell with 0.2 mm or more on 41 of the 71 days 
(58%). Weather conditions on bird observation days are 
noted in appendix 2 together with the respective flowering 
phenology records. 


Invertebrate visitors 


_ For invertebrates, we documented visits by larger mobile 


and potentially pollinating insects and also the array of small 
invertebrates which fell from the blossoms when the branches 
were beaten and are assumed to be the target of foraging 
birds. Potentially pollinating insects from 29 Families 
within seven Orders were observed on flowering branches 
of A. dealbata (appendix 1). Of these, 41% of individuals 
were Dipterans (55% of which were Syrphidae) (table 2a) 
and 41% were Hymenoptera (of which 38% were Honey 


Potential pollen vectors of the mass flowering tree Acacia dealbata, within its natural range in southern Tasmania 


Bees Apis mellifera and 15% native bees). Coleoptera was a 
distant third in terms of frequency. 

A diverse array of small invertebrates of varying 
developmental stages (appendix 1) was captured when 
flowering branches were beaten. In all, 47 Families from 
10 Orders were represented but 94% of the total catch 
came from five Orders which each contributed between 
11 and 25% (table 2b). Within the more common 
Orders the most numerous Families were: Coleoptera— 
Chrysomelidae (leaf beetles), Diptera— Chironomidae 
(Midges), Hemiptera— Psyllidae (psyllids), Hymenoptera— 
Platygastridae (parasitoid wasps) and Araneae—‘Thomisidae 
(crab spiders). On the non-flowering tree, adjacent to 
flowering Tree 1, there was a reduced diversity of taxa. 
Over the four days when both trees were sampled, Tree 1 
yielded 106 invertebrates from 19 families while the non- 
flowering tree collection was only 30 individuals from 11 
Families (appendix 1). 


Bird visitors 


Across Sites 1 and 2 a total of ten bird species was seen to 
make contact with the inflorescences of A. dealbata trees 
during one or more of the 10-minute observation periods. A 
further 11 species perched on branches of A. dealbata trees 
but flew off without making contact with inflorescences or 
exhibiting feeding behaviour (table 3). 

Of the ten species that contacted inflorescences, six did so 
only occasionally, briefly and incidentally, during the course 
of feeding on flowers of an adjacent Banksia marginata tree 
(Eastern Spinebill); hawking airborne insects around the 


15 


tree crowns (Grey Fantail and Black-headed Honeyeater); 
or as a result of chasing or mating-related social behaviour 
(Yellow-throated Honeyeater, New Holland Honeyeater 
and Yellow Wattlebird). 

Four bird species did actively work the flowering crowns 
of A. dealbata, moving between adjacent trees while 
doing so. On some’ days they remained in the crowns 
for the entire 10-minute observation period and beyond. 
Brown Thornbills and Silvereyes appeared to be searching 
for and feeding on small invertebrates (pl. 3) while the 
Green Rosellas and Eastern Rosellas were observed to feed 
within the blossom-bearing crowns, selectively picking and 
consuming individual pollen bearing and/or galled flower-' 
heads (pl. 2). The presence of clipped branchlets on the 
ground below 97% of the trees at Site 1 (table 4) suggested 
that the Green Rosellas visited there more frequently than 
we were able to observe. Green Rosellas commenced 
visiting OPs at Site 1 once anthesis had commenced on 
some of the trees and were not observed on trees which 
were past peak flowering (fig. 1). Brown Thornbill visits 
were concentrated from early to peak flowering, but they 
also made a few visits before flowering commenced and 
after it had completed (fig. 1). 

At Site 2, Silvereyes showed similar foraging behaviour 
to Brown Thornbills as did the Eastern Rosella to that 
of the Green Rosellas. At Site 3, Brown Thornbills were 
observed feeding among the A. dealbata flowers, moving 
from crown to crown during the 10-minute observation 
periods on seven of the ten observation days. Grey Fantails 
made accidental contact with the inflorescences on one 
day while hawking insects around the crowns. Although 


TABLE 2a — Total flower visitors during 10-minute observation periods per tree on seven 
days throughout the 2018 flowering season. 


Observation Date 


Order 


Family 20Jul 7Aug 14Aug 24Aug 4Sep 11Sep 18Sep ‘Total 
Diptera 2 0 1 8 22 14 9 56 
(Syrphidae 0 0 0 2 12 11 6 31) 
Hymenoptera 0 0 2 DY, 11 14 6 55 
(Apidae 0 0 2 15 2 2 Oe 1) 
(Halictidae 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 6) 
(Colletidae 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2) 
Coleoptera 0 0 3 1 3 7 2 16 
Hemiptera 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 
Lepidoptera 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 
Neuroptera 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 
Thysanoptera 0 0 = 0 0 1 0 1 
Total : 6 0 7 31 36 37 18 135 
Flowering status! 5 35 60 100 85 65 25 - 


1 Mean % of flowers across sample trees which were judged to be fully opened (100 = peak flowering). 
Data from four trees were pooled. Within the total observations for Diptera and Hymenoptera the numbers 
for Families with highest putative pollination potential according to the literature are also detailed. For more 


complete data see Appendix 2. 


16 A.R. Griffin, A.B. Hingston, CE. Harwood, J.L. Harbard, M.]. Brown, K.M. Ellingsen and C.M. Young 


TABLE 2b — Numbers of small invertebrates captured by beating flower-bearing branches 
throughout the 2018 flowering season. 


Capture date 

Order 3July Jul 20Jul 7Aug 14Aug 24Aug 4Sep 11Sep 18Sep Total 
Hymenoptera D 13 9 13 28 32 26 33 41 200 
Hemiptera 12 24 13 18 13 24 16 23 26 169 
Diptera 17 26 15 33 11 18 15 18 9 162 
Coleoptera 3 11 7 9 12 26 22 15 17 122 
Araneae 7 9 6 12 13 11 17 6 9 90 
Neuroptera 0 2 1 3 3 3 6 1 3 22 
Acari 1 0 1 2 2 5 3 0 0 14 
Thysanoptera 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 2 0 8 
Lepidoptera 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 2 

Blattodea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 
Total 45 85 52 91 85 119 111 99 109 796 
Floweringstatus!. 0. 0 5 35 60 100 85 65 25 - 


"Mean % of flowers across sample trees which were judged to be fully opened (100 = peak flowering). 


Data from four trees pooled. For details see Appendix 1. 


PLATE 3 — Brown Thornbill feeding within the blossom of 
A.dealbata (photo M. Brown). 


Green Rosellas were not observed to visit the flowering 
crowns, the presence of clipped branchlets under 34% of 
nearby trees (table 4) indicated that they had made recent 


feeding visits. 
Indirect evidence of rosella feeding 


‘The surveys of clipped flowering branchlets on the ground 
below flowering A. dealbata trees at nine locations (table 4) 
suggested that Green Rosellas, and possibly Eastern Rosellas, 
fed on many of the trees. The proportion of trees below 
which clip could be detected ranged from 6% at Waverley 
Flora Reserve to 97% at Site 1, with a mean value across 
all nine sites of 57 % (table 4). 


Pollen carried by birds 


Seventeen birds were caught and swabbed (10 at Site 1 
over 3 days and 7 at Site 5 over 2 days) and nine of these 
carried pollen from various plants (tables 5a and 5b). Acacia 
polyads were recovered from five birds and on three of these 
(a Green Rosella and two Brown Thornbills) this was the 
only pollen present. 


Pollen viability on feathers 


‘The germination percentage of polyads experimentally placed 
on bird feathers was highest when freshly removed from the 
anthers. After 48 h incubation atambient temperature, 60% 
had germinated (fig. 2). Thereafter viability declined more 
or less linearly to 16% at Day 12, with no germination of 
the final sample taken at Day 17. : 


Potential pollen vectors of the mass flowering tree Acacia dealbata, within its natural range in southern Tasmania 17 


TABLE 3 — Number per species for birds observed at two sites through the period of the study, indicating 
behavioural characteristics. 


Site 1 — Knocklofty Site 2 — Mt Nelson 


Common Name Scientific name 


Perching on Contacting Feeding Perching Contacting. Feeding 
branches flowers on/ on flowers on/ 
among. «branches among 
inflor- inflor- 
escences escences 
Psittaciformes 
Green Rosella Platycercus caledonicus 19 19 19 19 ; 19 19 
Eastern Rosella Platycercus eximius = = = 4 4 4 
Musk Lorikeet Glossopsitta concinna = ae i 4 zi - 
Passeriformes 
Silvereye Zosterops lateralis = Bs es 33 4 94 
Brown Thornbill Acanthiza pusilla 14 14 14 5 5 5 
Yellow-throated Nesoptilotus flavicollis 5 * 2 10 i 
Honeyeater z 
Yellow Wattlebird Anthochaera paradoxa 6 * a 7 
New Holland Phylidonyris oe = is 9 a 
Honeyeater novaehollandiae o 
Crescent Phylidonyris = x a 1 vf 
Honeyeater pyrrhopterus 7 
Eastern Spinebill Acanthorhynchus 3 * = 4 
tenuirostris es Tr 
Black-headed Melithreptus affinis 1 oe ey 2 & 
Honeyeater 5 
Strong-billed Melithreptus ~ 2 ies = ag if 
Honeyeater validirostris a 
Scarlet Robin Petroica boodang i ee ee = is 
Grey Fantail Rhipidura albiscapa 3 * a cc o 
Superb Fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus 5 = oe = a 
Grey Currawong Strepera versicolor 2 pet ee 1 e 
Grey Butcherbird Cracticus torquatus fi 2 1 e 
Forest Raven Corvus tasmanicus 1 is ie ie, a 
Golden Whistler Pachycephala pectoralis 1 os si Es io 
Grey Shrike-thrush Colluricincla harmonica 1 es te = e z 
Common Blackbird Turdus merula 1 is iy i # 
Not identified ri be 


Fa at ana eg DO i a a 


sie wanee 
incidental contact only 


18 AR. Griffin, A.B. Hingston, CE. Harwood, J.L. Harbard, M.J. Brown, K.M. Ellingsen and C.M. Young 


TABLE 4 — Surveys of clip under A. dealbata trees at nine locations around Hobart, 
indicating feeding of Rosellas. 


Transect No. Date Location No. of trees with No. of trees Percentage of trees 
clip under tree without clip with clip (%) 

1 Aug 12. Knocklofty* (Site 1) 31 1 97 

2 Aug 13 Peter Murrell Reserve! 36 6 86 

3 Aug 17 ~~ Waverley Flora Reserve 29 6 

4 Aug 18 — Geilston to Shag Bay walk 2 21 

5 Aug 28 31 Turnip Fields Rd (Site 4) 32 34 48 

6 Aug 29 — Lenah Valley Creek track 51 20 72 

7 Aug 29 30 Turnip Fields Rd (Site 4) 16 15 52 

8 Aug 30 — Cleggs Rd, Ferntree (Pipeline Track) 20 8 71 

9 Sep 02 Lower Longley (Site 3) 10 19 34 
Total 200 153 57 


' Green Rosellas seen feeding on A. dealbata crowns at these locations at the time of survey. 


TABLE 5a — Numbers of pollen grains observed on 


Date 
(2018) 


Species 


birds captured at Waterworks Reserve. 


Pollen 


22 Jul 


22 Jul 
22 Jul 
20 Aug 
20 Aug 
20 Aug 
20 Aug 


Crescent Honeyeater 


Crescent Honeyeater 
Scarlet Robin 

Dusky Robin 
Eastern Spinebill 
Green Rosella 


Crescent Honeyeater 


65 Banksia, 3 Pinus, 
1 Eucalyptus? 


334 Banksia 
0 

0 

414 Ulex 
15 Acacia 
28 Banksia 


TABLE 5b — Numbers of pollen grains observed on 


birds captured at Knocklofty Reserve. 


Date Species Pollen 

(2018) 

14 Aug Superb Fairy-wren 0 

14 Aug Brown Thornbill 0 

14 Aug Brown Thornbill 0 

14 Aug Brown Thornbill 0 

22 Aug Crescent Honeyeater 90 Ulex, 439 Melaleuca, 

6 Banksia, 2 Acacia 

22 Aug Yellow-throated 6 Acacia, 9 Myrtaceae 
Honeyeater 

22 Aug Brown Thornbill 2 Acacia 

29 Aug Brown Thornbill 6 Acacia 

29 Aug Superb Fairy-wren 0 

29 Aug Superb Fairy-wren 0 


TABLE 6 — Mean number of full seeds from pods 
harvested at three levels within the crowns of five trees 
at Site 4. 


Full seed/pod by crown position 


Tree Tree Total Low Mid Top Weighted 
ht no.pods (%) (%) (%) mean 
(m) extracted 
1 24 623 3.0 333 ahy/ 3.3 
(84) (75) (67) 
2 13 521 3.1 3.8 3.9 3.6 
= 2(70) em (1) 9172) 
3 15 808 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 
(43) (42) (43) 
4 19 817 sH5 ah) 3.9 ah 7/ 
(62) (78) (82) 
5 20 1680 AS A) 5} 3.7 


(81) (77) _ 64) 


Pooled data from two separate samples of pods at each level per 
tree, also expressed as a % of the total seed per pod. Differences 
between trees in number and % full seed significant, p < 0.001. 
No significant variation between levels within trees or tree x level 


interaction, p > 0.05. 


Max. germination after 
48-72 hrs at 15-23°C 


60 


Polyad germination (%) 


Fresh 1 3 7 12 17 
Days old 


FIG. 2 — Viability over time of pollen placed on feathers at Day 
0 and re-sampled at intervals up to 17 days. Material was kept 
dry and at ambient temperature. 


Potential pollen vectors of the mass flowering tree Acacia dealbata, within its natural range in southern Tasmania 19 


150 


50 


No. of flowerheads/m? 


) 3} GC Y 10 % 3 A 
Distance from canopy edge (m) 


——— Transect 1 


——memene Transect 2 


——eee §=Transect 3 


24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 


FIG. 3 — Dispersion of detached flower-heads on three transects run perpendicular to forest margin across open paddock at Site 4. 


Wind dispersal of flower-heads 


Head dispersal was surveyed on 17 August after a period 
of particularly windy weather. On the six previous days, 
maximum daily gusts at Ellerslie Rd ranged between 44 and 
102 km h7!. For transects 1 and 2 which were perpendicular 
to the forest margin across open grassland, over 80% of heads 
fell within 15 m of the canopy margin, though occasional 
heads were still detected at the limit of observation (49.5 m) 
(fig. 3). The greater variability of Transect 3 could be 
attributable to the effect of several trees about 30 m away 
to the side of this transect. 


Pod and seed production 


Both flowering and mature pod production were essentially 
uniform within a tree crown as can be seen from the 
photographs of two trees which flowered heavily at Site 4 
(pl. 1). Pod production from the very topmost branches is 
interesting in thatit seems unlikely that, under the commonly 
prevailing weather conditions, these very exposed locations 
would be favoured as feeding sites by any of the insect 
visitors or even the birds; however, this is speculation. The 
mean number of full seed per pod was quite uniform among 
trees except for Tree 3 which was highly parasitised and only 
averaged 1.4 full seeds per pod, less than half the number of 
the nearby Trees 4 and 5 (table 6). Among the height levels 
in the crown there was no significant pattern of variation 
(p > 0.05, table 6). Although the pods from the top of Tree 
5 had fewer seeds than lower in the canopy, it should be 
noted that this was the earliest maturing individual and it 
is possible that some seeds were already shedding from the 
dehiscing pods by the time we made the harvest. 

The ovaries of A. dealbata flowers contain an average of 
13 ovules (Correia et a/. 2014). In the current study about 
one-third (4.26) were fertilised and developed to the point 
they could be classified as a seed, of which an average of 
74% or 3.14 per pod were full. 


DISCUSSION 


The floral biology of A. dealbata is most closely aligned 
with an insect pollination syndrome; however, the weather 
conditions during the late winter/early spring flowering 
season are not conducive to insect flight activity and very 
few such visitors were observed until late in the flowering 
season (table 2a). Itappears very unlikely that these numbers 
were sufficient to have a major impact as pollinators. A 
more objective determination of this point would require 
estimation of both flower numbers and the period over 
which individual stigmas remain receptive and is outside 
the scope of the present study. The introduced honey bee 
was the most common insect visitor, as was also the case 
where the species is growing as an exotic in South Africa 
(Rodger & Johnson 2013), Portugal (Correia et al. 2014) 
and Italy (Giuliani et a/. 2016 ), but the maximum number 
of individuals seen in a single observation period was only 
15 across the four trees at the time of peak flowering (table 
2a). As in an earlier study of three other species of Acacia in 
Tasmania (Hingston & McQuillan 2000), small numbers of 
native bees, flies and beetles were also observed visiting the 
flowers. Of the native bees, which Bernhardt and Walker 
(1984) regarded as extremely significant pollinators of Acacia 
species, we observed only six individual Halictidae and two 
Colletidae over the whole study period. Stone et al. (2003) 
reported that over a range of Acacia species native bees 


. represented only 1—5% of flower visits, so the generalisation 


regarding importance of native bees as pollinators is worth 
revisiting at least for cool temperate Australia. In a study 
of two spring/summer flowering Acacia species in Western 
NSW (Gilpin et al. 2014) only honey bees were found 
in high abundance and only they and two beetle species 
carried pollen on their bodies. Syrphid flies, also noted by 
Bernhardt (1989) as potentially important vectors, were the 
mostcommon Dipteran visitors to the study trees (table 2a). 
A. dealbata is the earliest flowering of all Tasmanian acacias 
and if outcrossing by insects was of critical evolutionary 
importance then we might expect that selection pressure on 
the phenology would have caused a shift to later flowering. 


20 A.R. Griffin, A.B. Hingston, CE. Harwood, J.L. Harbard, M.J. Brown, K.M. Ellingsen and CM. Young 


The species does not produce nectar from either flowers 
or extra-floral nectaries and this, together with the yellow 
flowers and distinctive scent, is inconsistent with traditional 
bird pollination syndromes which are characterised by 
the production of abundant nectar to support energetic 
needs, red colour, and little scent (Faegri & van der Pijl 
1979, Nadra et al. 2018). However, since some bird 
species were observed to consistently feed on and among 
the flowers (table 3) they must clearly be deriving some 
benefit. Brown Thornbills and Silvereyes have previously 
been documented working among flowers of other Acacia 
species (Ford & Forde 1976, Knox et al. 1985, Vanstone & 
Paton 1988), but in those cases they were feeding primarily 
from extrafloral nectaries which are vestigial in A. dealbata 
(Marazzi et al. 2019). However, Silvereyes and a Striated 
Thornbill Acanthiza lineata also occasionally pecked at 
flowers of A. pycnantha, and invertebrates and pollen were 
both suggested as the possible food items targeted (Ford 
& Forde 1976, Vanstone & Paton 1988). Our data clearly 
show that small invertebrates are a likely food source 
because of their abundance within inflorescences of A. 
dealbata. In a study in Victoria, Haylock and Lill (1988) 
found that thornbill diet was dominated by Coleoptera 
and Hymenoptera which we have shown are common on 
A. dealbata flowering branches at Site 1 (table 2a). The 
great majority of taxa we collected were within the size 
range of <4 mm which Tullis e¢ ad, (1982) reported as 
making up 72% of the diet of two species of thornbill in 
Western Australia. 

‘The importance of the micro-habitat of Acacia flowers 
to small invertebrates is evidenced by the greater diversity 
on flowering than non-flowering crowns (appendix 1). On 
a flowering tree 45% of the total catch was Chrysomelid 
beetles in larval form, Chironomid midges, and comb- 
footed spiders (Theridiidae), but of these taxa, only two 
beetle larvae were present in samples from an adjacent 
non-flowering tree, where 50% of individuals were Psyllids. 
These differences are explainable in terms of feeding 
preferences. Larvae of some species of Chironomid may feed 
on pollen (Armitage et al. 1995); spiders presumably prey 
on other small invertebrates which are present in greater 
numbers on the flowering tree; many beetle larvae including 
Chrysomelids are adapted to consuming pollen (Bernhardt 
1989) and can sometimes cause very significant damage 

to flowers of A. dealbata by eating the filaments, anthers 
and styles (Griffin unpubl. data). In contrast, the Psyllids 
are sap suckers and presumably vegetative shoots without 
flowers are also attractive to them. The seasonal pattern of 
occurrence of the small invertebrates was quite different to 
that of the larger insect flower visitors. Populations of the 
former were present within the inflorescences from well 
before flowering began (table 2b). These increased once 
trees began to flower, after which the total catch per day 
across the four sample trees was quite uniform through 
the rest of the season, though the maximum number was 
recorded at the time of peak flowering. In contrast very few 
potential pollinating insects were recorded until the trees 
reached peak flowering and numbers declined again towards 
the end of the season (table 2a). The extended availability 


of small-invertebrate food explains why Brown Thornbills 
were also observed among the blossom throughout the 
complete season (fig. 1). 

The foraging behaviour of Green Rosellas at flowers of A. 
dealbata was very different to that of Silvereyes and Brown 
Thornbills as they were observed to harvest and ingest whole 
flower-heads at a stage prior to complete anthesis (fig. 2). 
Several previously documented cases of bird pollination 
of nectarless flowers also reported that floral tissues were 
consumed (Sérsic & Cocucci 1996, Dellinger et a/. 2014, 
Nadra et al. 2018). We are unable to comment on the 
relative nutritional value of the floral components and/ 
or parasitising gall insects, but it is known that two other 
species of parrot occurring in our study region (Swift Parrot 
Lathamus discolor and Musk Lorikeet Glossopsitta concinna) 
intentionally consume and digest the pollen of Eucalyptus 
(Gartrell & Jones 2001, Hingston et al. 2004a). Green 
and Eastern Rosellas both have been observed foraging on 
open flowers of Eucalyptus (Hingston & Potts 2005), so 
the pollen is likely to be important as a food resource, a 
conclusion consistent with the decline in the bird visits at 
Site 1 after peak flowering (fig. 1). Magrath and Lill (1983) 
observed similar feeding behaviour in Crimson Rosellas (P? 
elegans) on eucalypts in Victoria, concluding that flower 
buds and associated gall larvae formed nearly 50% of their 
seasonal diet. These authors noted that, consistent with 
our observations, feeding rosellas always drop debris, so 
relative frequency of occurrence on the ground was used 
in estimating the diet in that study. Pollination by flower- 
consuming Meyer's Parrots Poicephalus meyeri has also been 
documented in African ‘acacias’ (Boyes & Perrin 2009). 

Although these two rosella species are destructive foragers, 
they most likely pollinate numerous flowers as they clamber 
among the blossom and the prevalence of clippings beneath 
many flowering A. dealbata trees (table 4) shows that such 
activities are common and widespread. Given the mass 
flowering and characteristically low flower: fruit ratio in 
this and other Acacia species, the loss of some flowers may 
be an affordable price to pay for the pollination services 
provided by these species. 

The feeding habits of these two functional groups of birds 
explains their presence in and among the flowers but to act 
as pollen vectors they must pick up pollen in the process. 
We were able to recover small amounts of Acacia pollen 
from the feathers of Green Rosellas and Brown Thornbills 
(table 5a, 5b) and have demonstrated that once pollen is 
removed from the anthers it can retain over half its viability 
for at least seven days (fig. 2), substantially longer than 
the three days reported by Sedgley and Harbard (1993) 
for tropical acacia taxa. Presumably this is time enough for 
birds to make many inter-tree visits before pollen viability 
is lost. Although both the number of birds sampled and 
the pollen recovered from those individuals was small, the 
data support the contention that these birds play a role in 
outcross pollination. The clip surveys (table 4) found that 
57% of the A. dealbata trees across the region had been 
visited by rosellas which are strong-flying birds capable 
of many inter-tree movements. However, the numbers of 
individuals observed foraging on or among the flowers was 


Potential pollen vectors of the mass flowering tree Acacia dealbata, within its natural range in southern Tasmania 21 


small (table 3). Thornbills and Silvereyes were relatively 
more numerous at all three observation sites but it seems 
unlikely that either functional group could have been solely 
responsible for the total number of pollen transfer events 
needed to set the observed heavy fruit crop. 


Possibility of wind pollination 


Though the detached flowerheads have a substantial mass 
and over open ground were mostly deposited within 20 m 
of the crowns (fig. 3), this distance is more than enough 
for pollen transfer within stands of A. dealbata given the 
windy conditions which are prevalent during the flowering 
season in this region (Bureau of Meteorology 2018). It 
remains to be demonstrated that polyads are also blown off 
the open anthers under some conditions but the literature 
suggests that this is possible. Flowers of Acacia do not 
exhibit morphological traits normally characteristic of wind 
pollinated plants (Sedgley & Griffin 1989, Gibson eg al. 
2011) and the polyads which average 46 pm in diameter 
(Nghiem etal. 2018) are larger than the 25 um that is typical 
of the wind pollination syndrome (Knox 1979). However, 
as noted by Kendrick (2003), the disc shape of the polyad 
may have aerodynamic properties which serve to counteract 
their relatively large size. Reviews of the pollination ecology 
of the genus by Bernhardt (1989) and Stone et al. (2003) 
do not discuss the possibility but there are some records of 
wind dispersal of Acacia pollen (Moncur et a/. 1991, Smart 
& Knox 1979, Kendrick 2003, Giovanetti et al. 2018) and 
allergy to airborne pollen has been reported from.a number 
of countries (Ariano etal. 1991). Millar eral. (2014) offered 


long-distance wind-mediated dispersal of small insects as an - 


explanation for their finding of substantial gene flow between 
dispersed populations of A. woodmaniorum in Western 
Australia. While Keighery (1980) listed Acacia as being 
primarily insect pollinated in that region, he acknowledged 
that bird and wind transference could play a minor role in 
pollination and noted that “more observations are needed 
on (pollen vectors) of this important genus”. 

Factors determining efficiency of wind pollination are 
very different from those with biotic vectors. ‘There is no 
issue of population number in pollen transfer since wind is 
a more or less general phenomenon in the region during the 
flowering season of A. dealbata. While biotic vectors would 
target flowers during feeding, wind dispersion is effectively 
random in space but with density in the air as the major 
determinant of the probability that a polyad would land on 
a receptive style. It is likely that geitonogamous pollination 
(transfer of pollen between flowers within a single genet) 
within a tree crown or between ramets of a clone would 
be a much more frequent outcome than transfer between 
different genets, so impact of vector type on the breeding 
system needs to be considered. 

Studies of the species as an exotic in South Africa (Rodger 
& Johnson 2013) and Portugal (Correia et al. 2014) found 
that A. dealbata is partially self-fertile and demonstrated 
that autonomous pollination is possible (see also review by 
Gibson 2011), although Broadhurst ez a/. (2008) found 
that only outcrossed seed were produced under natural 


pollination conditions in populations of the species in 
New South Wales. Mechanisms favouring preferential 
development of outcrosses may operate in Acacia as in 
Eucalyptus (Griffin et al. 1987) but this remains to be 
demonstrated. If the plants are strongly reliant on biotic 
outcross pollination in order to set seed and pollinators 
are scarce relative to the large number of flowers produced, 
then we would expect to see a patchy distribution of pods 
within each tree crown. The pod -and seed production 
data are therefore useful in gaining an appreciation of 
the likelihood of such pollen limitation. We were not 
able to quantify total flower or pod crops per tree but ~ 
it was evident from inspection that pod set in 2018 was 
generally both heavy and uniformly distributed within the 
crowns to the very topmost branches (pl. 1 and table 6). 
The consistent uniformity of production of full seed pods 
throughout the crown (table 6) strengthens the possibility 
that wind pollination may be important and is in contrast 
to Eucalyptus globulus, a common dominant tree species in 
southeast Tasmania which is known to be pollinated by 
both birds and insects (Hingston et al. 2004b). In that 
species Hingston and Potts (2005) found significantly 
less flower-visiting bird activity in the lower than higher 
halves of the crowns and Patterson et al. (2004) showed 
this pattern was associated with higher outcrossing rates for 
the seeds from the upper part of the canopy. In our study, 
observed population mean number of full seeds per pod of 
3.14 (table 6) is substantially higher than the maximum 
mean of 1.2 found in the ten NSW populations studied 
by Broadhurst and Young (2006), or the 1.04 in an exotic 
population in South Africa (Rodger & Johnson 2013) and _ 
can be taken as another indication of probable high levels 
of outcrossing. Genetic analysis of seed samples from Site 4, 
to be published elsewhere, has confirmed this assumption. 
The mating system is definitely strongly outcrossing (t = 
0.89 + 0.92) (R. Vaillancourt unpubl. data). 

In summary, the study failed to definitively identify any 
one major pollinator of A. dealbata in this environment 
yet we infer from the heavy and uniformly distributed 
pod crops and from the genetic analysis, that outcrossing 
must be occurring. The species is best viewed as having a 
generalist pollination system, a conclusion reached by the 
study of Montesinos et al. (2016) in exotic populations 
in Portugal and consistent with many other plant species 


“in southern Tasmania (Hingston & McQuillan 2000). 


Evolution of reproductive attributes amenable to pollination 
by a range of different vectors may be of adaptive advantage 
(Hingston & McQuillan 2000, Ollerton et a/. 2009), with 
the consequence that current major pollen vectors cannot 
be predicted from consideration of floral traits alone. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 


The authors wish to acknowledge Elise Jefferies of Hobart 
City Council for permission to conduct the studies at 
Knocklofty Reserve, Astrid Wright of the Friends of 
Knocklofty for access to historical records of vegetation 
management, Dr David Paton for advice on bird observa- 


22 ALR. Griffin, A.B. Hingston, CE. Harwood, J.L. Harbard, M.J]. Brown, K.M. Ellingsen and C.M. Young 


tions, and Geoffand Janet Fenton for bird data from Longley. 
Mist-netting was conducted under the following permits 
held by CMY: Animal Ethics approval from University of 
Tasmania (A0015838), Australian Bird and Bat Banding 
Scheme project licence (2833-1), scientific permit from the 
Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry, Parks, Water 
and Environment (FA 18153) and Hobart City Council 
research permit (03-2018). We also thank the anonymous 
reviewer for their helpful comments. 


REFERENCES 


Ariano, R., Panzani, R.C. & Amedeo, J. 1991: Pollen allergy to 
Mimosa (Acacia-floribunda) in a mediterranean area — an 
occupational-disease. Annals of Allergy 66: 253-256. 

Armitage, P.D., Cranston, PS. & Pinder, L.C.V. 1995: The 
Chironomidae: biology and ecology of non-biting midges. 
Chapman & Hall, London: 572 pp. 

Bernhardt, P. 1987: A comparison of the diversity, density, and 
foraging behavior of bees and wasps on Australian Acacia. 
Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 74: 42-50. 

Bernhardt, P. 1989: The floral ecology of Australian Acacia. Jn 
Stirton, C.H. & Zarucchi, J.L. (eds.): Advances in Legume 
Biology. Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri 
Botanical Garden 29: 263-281. 

Bernhardt, P. & Walker, K. 1984: Bee foraging on 3 sympatric 
species of Australian Acacia. International Journal of 
Entomology 26: 322-330. 

Boland, D., Brooker, M., Chippendale, G., Hall, N., Hyland, 
B., Johnston, R., Kleinig, D., McDonald, M. & Turner, 
J. 2006: Forest trees of Australia (Fifth Edition), CSIRO, 
Melbourne: 568 pp. 

Bureau of Meteorology 2018: ‘Hobart, Tas - Daily Weather 
Observations.’ Available at: http://www.bom.gov.au/ 
climate/dwo/IDCJDW7021.latest.shtml 

Boughton, V. 1981: Extrafloral nectaries of some Australian 
phyllodineous Acacias. Australian Journal of Botany 29: 
653-664. 

Boyes, R.S. & Perrin, M.R. 2009: Do Meyer's Parrots Poicephalus 
meyeri benefit pollination and seed dispersal of plants in 
the Okavango Delta, Botswana? African Journal of Ecology 
48, 769-782. 

Broadhurst, L.M. & Young, A.G. 2006: Reproductive constraints 
for the long-term persistence of fragmented Acacia dealbata 
(Mimosaceae) populations in southeast Australia. Biological 
Conservation 133: 512-526. 

Broadhurst, L.M., Young, A.G. & Forrester, R. 2008: Genetic 
and demographic responses of fragmented Acacia dealbata 
(Mimosaceae) populations in southeastern australia. 
Biological Conservation 141: 2843-2856. 

Correia, M., Castro, S., Ferrero, V., Criséstomo, J.A. & 
Rodriguez-Echeverria, S. 2014: Reproductive biology and 
success of invasive Australian Acacias in Portugal. Botanical 
Journal of the Linnean Society 174: 574-588. 

Dellinger, A.S., Penneys, D.S., Staedler, Y.M., Fragner, L., 
Weckwerth, W. & Schénenberger, J. 2014: A specialized 
bird pollination system with a bellows mechanism for 
pollen transfer and staminal food body rewards. Current 
Biology 24: 1615-1619. 

Faegri, K. & van der Pijl, L. 1979: The Principles of Pollination 
Ecology. Pergamon Press, Oxford: 244 pp. 

Ford, H.A. & Forde, N. 1976: Birds as possible pollinators of 
Acacia pycnantha, Australian Journal of Botany 24: 793-795. 

Ford, H.A., Paton, D.C. & Forde, N. 1979: Birds as pollinators 
a fare plants. New Zealand Journal of Botany 17: 


Fuentes-Ramirez, A., Pauchard, A., Cavieres, L.A. & Garcia, R.A. 
2011: Survival and growth of Acacia dealbata vs. native 
trees across an invasion front in south-central Chile. Forest 
Ecology and Management 261: 1003-1009. 

Gartrell, B.D. & Jones, S.M. 2001: Eucalyptus pollen grain 
emptying by two Australian nectarivorous psittacines. 
Journal of Avian Biology 32: 224-230. 

Gibson, M.R., Richardson, D.M., Marchante, E., Marchante, H., 
Rodger, J.G., Stone, G.N., Byrne, M., Fuentes-Ramirez, 
A., George, N., Harris, C., Johnson, S.D., Roux, J.J.L., 
Miller, J.T., Murphy, D.J., Pauw, A., Prescott, M.N., 
Wandrag, E.M. & Wilson, J.R.U. 2011: Reproductive 
biology of Australian Acacias: Important mediator of 
invasiveness? Diversity and Distributions 17: 911-933. 

Gilpin, A.M., Ayre, D.J. & Denham, A.J. 2014: Can the 
pollination biology and floral ontogeny of the threatened 
Acacia carneorum explain its lack of reproductive success? 
Ecological Research 29: 225-235. 

Giovanetti, M., Ramos, M. & Maguas, C. 2018: Why so many 
flowers? A preliminary assessment of mixed pollination 
strategy enhancing sexual production of the invasive Acacia 
longifolia in Portugal. Web Ecology 18: 47-54. 

Giuliani, C., Giovanetti, M., Foggi, B. & Mariotti Lippi, M. 
2016: Two alien invasive acacias in Italy: Differences and 
similarities in their flowering and insect visitors. Plant 
Biosystems — An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects 
of Plant Biology 150: 285-294. 

Griffin, A.R., Moran, G.F. & Fripp, Y.J. 1987: Preferential 
outcrossing in Eucalyptus regnans FMuell. Australian Journal 
of Botany 35: 465-475. 

Griffin, A.R., Hingston, A.B. & Ohmart, C.P. 2009: Pollinators of 
Eucalyptus regnans (Myrtaceae), the world’s tallest flowering 
plant species. Australian Journal of Botany 57: 18-25. 

Griffin, A.R, Midgley, S., Bush, D., Cunningham, P. & Rinaudo, 
A. 2011: Global uses of Australian acacias—recent trends and 
future prospects. Diversity and Distributions 17: 837-847. 

Harwood, C.E., Griffin, A.R., Harbard, J.L. & Nghiem, Q.C. 
2018: Studies on triploid clones of Silver Wattle (Acacia 
dealbata) in southeast Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalist 


140: 107-123. 


Haylock, J. & Lill, A. 1988: Winter ecological energetics of 2 


passerine bird species in temperate wet forest. Wildlife 
Research 15: 319 -329. e 

Hingston, A.B. & McQuillan, P.B. 2000: Are pollination 
syndromes useful predictors of floral visitors in Tasmania? 
Austral Ecology 25: 600-609. 

Hingston, A.B., Gartrell, B.D. & Pinchbeck, G. 2004a: How 
specialized is the plant-pollinator association between 
Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus and the swift parrot 
Lathamus discolor? Austral Ecology 29: 624-630. 

Hingston, A.B., Potts, B.M. & McQuillan, PB. 2004b: Pollination 
services provided by various size classes of flower visitors 
to Eucalyptus globulus ssp globulus (Myrtaceae). Australian 
Journal of Botany 52: 353-369. 

Hingston, A.B. & Potts, B.M. 2005: Pollinator activity can explain 
variation in outcrossing rates within individual trees. Austral 
Ecology-30: 319-324. 

Keighery, G.J. 1980: Bird pollination in south western Australia: 
A checklist. Plant Systematics and Evolution 135: 171-176. 

Kendrick, J. 2003: Review of pollen-pistil interactions and their 
relevance to the reproductive biology of Acacia. Australian 
Systematic Botany 16: 119-130. 

Kitchener, A. & Harris, S. 2013: From forest to fjaeldmark: 
Descriptions of Tasmania's vegetation, Department of Primary 
Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania: 14 pp. 

Knox, R.B. 1979: ‘Pollen and Allergy’ Studies in Biology No. 107, 
Edward Arnold Ltd., London: 64 pp. 

Knox, R.B., Kenrick, J., Bernhardt, P., Marginson, R., Beresford, 
G., Baker, I. & Baker, H.G. 1985: Extrafloral nectaries 


Potential pollen vectors of the mass flowering tree Acacia dealbata, within its natural range in southern Tasmania 23 


as adaptations for bird pollination in Acacia terminalis. 
American Journal of Botany 72: 1185-1196. 

Magrath, R. & Lill, A. 1983: The use of time and energy by 
the Crimson Rosella in a temperate wet forest in winter. 
Australian Journal of Zoology 31: 903-912. 

Marazzi, B., Gonzalez, A.M., Delgado-Salinas, A., Luckow, M.A., 
Ringelberg, J.J. & Hughes, C.E. 2019: Extrafloral nectaries 
in leguminosae: Phylogenetic distribution, morphological 
diversity and evolution. Australian Systematic Botany 32: 
409-458. 

Millar, M.A., Coates, D.J. & Byrne, M. 2014: Extensive long- 
distance pollen dispersal and highly outcrossed mating 
in historically small and disjunct populations of Acacia 
woodmaniorum (fabaceae), a rare banded iron formation 
endemic. Annals of Botany 114: 961-971. 

Moncur, M.W., Moran, G.F. & Grant, J.E. 1991: Factors limiting 
seed production in Acacia mearnsii. Advances in Tropical 
Acacia Research 35: 20-25. 

Montesinos, D., Castro, S. & Rodriguez-Echeverria, S. 2016: 
Two invasive Acacia species secure generalist pollinators in 
invaded communities. Acta Occologica 74: 46-55. 

Nadra, M.G., Giannini, N.P., Acosta, J.M. & Aagesen, L. 2018: 
Evolution of pollination by frugivorous birds in Neotropical 
Myrtaceae. Peer] 6, e5426. 

Nghiem, Q.., Griffin, A., Harwood, C., Harbard, J., Le, S., Price, 
A. & Koutoulis, A. 2018: Occurrence of polyploidy in 
populations of Acacia dealbata in south-eastern Tasmania 
and cytotypic variation in reproductive traits. Australian 
Journal of Botany 66: 152-160. 

Ollerton J, Alarcén R, Waser, N.M., Price, M.V., Watts, S., 
Cranmer, L., Hingston, A., Peter, C.I. & Rotenberry, J. 
2009: A global test of the pollination syndrome hypothesis. 
Annals of Botany 103: 1471-1480. 

Patterson, B., Vaillancourt, R.E., Pilbeamb, D.J. & Potts, 
B.M. 2004: Factors affecting variation in outcrossing rate 
in Eucalyptus globulus. Australian- Journal of Botany 52: 
773-780. 


Rodger, J.G. & Johnson, S.D. 2013: Self-pollination and— 


inbreeding depression in Acacia dealbata: Can selfing 


promote invasion in trees? South African Journal of Botany 
88: 252-259. 

Rosas-Guerrero, V., Aguilar, R., Martén-Rodriguez, S., Ashworth, 
L., Lopezaraiza-Mikel, M., Bastida, J.M. & Quesada, 
M. 2014: A quantitative review of pollination syndromes: 
do floral traits predict effective pollinators? Ecology Letters 
17: 388-400. 

Sargent, O.H. 1928: Reactions between birds and plants. Emu — 
Austral Ornithology 27: 185-192. 

Sedgley, M. & Griffin, A.R. 1989: Sexual Reproduction of Tree 
Crops, Academic Press, London: 378 pp. 

Sedgley, M. & Harbard, J.L. 1993: Pollen storage and breeding 
system in relation to controlled pollination of 4 species of 
Acacia (Leguminosae, Mimosoideae). Australian Journal of 
Botany 41: 601-609. 

Sérsic, A.N. 8& Cocucci, A. 1996: A remarkable case of 
ornithophily in Calceolaria: food bodies as rewards for 
a non-nectarivorous bird. Botanica Acta 109: 172-176. 

Smart, I. & Knox, R. 1979: Aerobiology of grass pollen in the 
city atmosphere of Melbourne: quantitative analysis of 
seasonal and diurnal changes. Australian Journal of Botany 
27: 317-331. 

Stone, G.N., Raine, N.E., Prescott, M. & Willmer, P.G. 2003: 
Pollination ecology of Acacias (Fabaceae, Mimosoideae). 
Australian Systematic Botany 16: 103-118. 

Tullis, K., Calver, M. & Wooller, R. 1982: The invertebrate diets 
of small birds in Banksia woodland near Perth, W.A., during 
winter. Wildlife Research 9: 303-309. 

Vanstone, V.A. & Paton, D.C. 1988: Extrafloral nectaries and 
pollination of Acacia pycnantha Benth. by birds. Australian 
Journal of Botany 36: 519-531. 

Wandrag, E.M., Sheppard, A.W., Duncan, R.P. & Hulme, PE. 
2015: Pollinators and predators at home and away: do they 
determine invasion success for Australian Acacia in New 


Zealand? Journal of Biogeography 42: 619-629. 


(accepted 22 July 2020) 


24 ALR. Griffin, A.B. Hingston, CE. Harwood, J.L. Harbard, MJ]. Brown, K.M. Ellingsen and C.M. Young 


APPENDIX 1 


Invertebrate survey data from branch beating and observation on four flowering trees and one non-flowering tree. 
Total numbers across all trees and seven observation dates. 


Class Order Family Common name State Invertebrates Invertebrates Invertebrates Total 
BEATING BEATING OBSERVED (flowering 
(non- (flowering) (flowering) trees only) 
flowering 
tree) 
Insecta Blattodea Ectobiidae Cockroach Adult 0 2 0 2 
Insecta Coleoptera Attelabidae Leaf rolling Adult 0 2 0 2 
weevils 
Insecta Coleoptera Cerambycidae Longicorns Adult 0 0 1 1 
Insecta Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Leaf beetles Adult/ 2 61 6 67 
Larvae 
Insecta Coleoptera Cleridae Clerid beetles Adult 0 2 0 2 
Insecta Coleoptera Coccinellidae Ladybirds Adult 0 23 1 24 
Insecta Coleoptera Curculionidae Weevils Adult 0 0 1 l 
Insecta. Coleoptera Latridiidae Minute Adult 0 30 0 30 
scavenger beetle 
Insecta Coleoptera Nitidulidae Sap beetles Adult 0 3 0 3 
Insecta Coleoptera Scarabaeidae Scarab beetles Adult 0 0 u 7 
Insecta Coleoptera Tenebrionidae Darkling beetles Adult 0 1 0 1 
Insecta Diptera cf. Root maggot Adult 0 0 1 1 
Anthomyiidae flies 
Insecta Diptera Cecidomyiidae Gall midges Adult 0 9 0 9 
Insecta Diptera Chironomidae —_ Midges Adult 0 106 19 125 
Insecta Diptera Chloropidae Frit flies Adult 0 9 0 9 
Insecta Diptera Empididae Dance flies Adult 0 5 0 5 
Insecta Diptera Lauxaniidae Lauxaniid flies Adult 0 0 1 l 
Insecta Diptera Phoridae Scuttle flies Adult ] 3 0 3 
Insecta Diptera Sciaridae Fungus gnats Adult 0 15 1 16 
Insecta Diptera Syrphidae Hoverflies Adult 0 f 31 38 
Insecta Diptera Tachinidae Tachinid flies Adult 0 0 3 3 
Insecta Diptera Diptera Adult 0 8 0 8 
Unknown 
Insecta Hemiptera cf. Callipappidae Bird of paradise Adult 0 0 1 l 
flies 
Insecta Hemiptera Cicadellidae Leafhoppers Adult/ 3 7 0 7 
nymph 
Insecta Hemiptera Miridae Plant bugs Adult/ ‘J 75 1 76 
nymph 
Insecta Hemiptera  Monophlebidae — Giant scales Adult 0 0 1 1 
Insecta Hemiptera Pentatomidae Shield bugs Adult 0 0 1 1 
Insecta Hemiptera Pseudococcidae Mealy bugs Adult 0 3 0 3 
Insecta Hemiptera Psyllidae Psyllids Adult/ 16 74 0 74 
nymph 
Insecta. Hemiptera Reduviidae Assasin bugs Adult 0 I 0 1 
I . ‘. : 
nsecta Hemiptera Tingidae Lace bugs Adult 0 9 0 9 


Potential pollen vectors of the mass flowering tree Acacia dealbata, within its natural range in southern Tasmania 


25 
Class Order Family Common name State Invertebrates Invertebrates Invertebrates Total 
BEATING BEATING OBSERVED (flowering 
(non- (flowering) (flowering) trees only) 
flowering 
tree) 
Insecta Hymenoptera Apidae Bees Adult 0 0 21 21 
Insecta Hymenoptera Bethylidae Aculeate wasps Adult 0 2 0 2 
Insecta Hymenoptera Braconidae Braconid wasps Adult 0 5 2 7 
Insecta Hymenoptera Colletidae Short-tongued Adult 0 1 2 3 
bees 
Insecta Hymenoptera Diapriidae Parasitoid wasps Adult 1 1 0 1 
Insecta. Hymenoptera Encyrtidae Parasitoid wasps Adult 1 7 0 7 
Insecta Hymenoptera Eulophidae Parasitoid wasps Adult 0 12 1 13 
Insecta Hymenoptera Formicidae Ants Adult 1 11 2 13 
Insecta Hymenoptera Halictidae Burrowing bees Adult 0 0 6 6 
Insecta. Hymenoptera Ichneumonidae — Ichneumon Adult 0 0 11 11 
wasps 
Insecta Hymenoptera Platygastridae Parasitoid wasps Adult 1 146 1 147 
Insecta. Hymenoptera Pteromalidae Parasitoid wasps Adult 1 9 0 9 
Insecta. Hymenoptera Tiphiidae Flower wasps Adult 0 0 2 2 
Insecta Hymenoptera Hymenoptera Adult 0 6 7 13 
Unknown 
Insecta. Lepidoptera Geometridae Loopers Larvae 0 1 0 1 
Insecta Lepidoptera Lymantriidae Tussock moths Larvae 0 1 2 3 
Insecta Lepidoptera  Ocecophoridae Concealer moths Adult 0 1 0 1 
Insecta. Lepidoptera Lepidoptera Larvae 0 4 0 4 
Unknown 
Insecta Neuroptera Chrysopidae Green lacewing Larvae 0 1 0 1 
Insecta Neuroptera Coniopterygidae Dusty wings Adults 0 18 1 19 
Insecta Neuroptera  Hemerobiidae Brown lacewings —_ Larvae 0 3 0 3 
Insecta Thysanoptera Thysanoptera Thrips Adult 0 8 1 9 
Unknown 
Araneae Araneidae Orb weavers Adult/ 0 1 0 1 
spiderlings 
Araneae Clubionidae Sac spiders Adult/ 0 2 0 2 
spiderlings 
Araneae Salticidae Jumping spiders Adult/ 0 1 0 1 
spiderlings 
Araneae Theridiidae Comb-footed Adult/ 0 33 0 33 
spiders spiderlings 
Araneae Thomisidae Crab spiders Adult/ 0 46 1 47 
spiderlings 
Araneae Araneae Adult/ 2 7 0 7, 
Unknown » spiderlings 
Acari Unknown Mites 2 14 0 14 


! For photographic records of most taxa by K. Ellison see: https://www.flickr.com/photos/zosterops/albums/72157698885625455/pagel 


26 ALR. Griffin, A.B. Hingston, CE. Harwood, JL. Harbard, M.J. Brown, K.M. Ellingsen and C.M. Young 


APPENDIX 2 
Daily records of bird species observed visiting A. dealbata crowns over a 10-minute observation period at 
each of five observation points at Knocklofty (Site 1). Ambient conditions and flowering status of observed 
trees are shown for each observation point. 


lite Hite gy sales aa Days from start (26 June) 
point flowering 


I Oo A Al a aE 20) 28) 2 OW GG WD 


1 Brownlhornbil ieee sees ee 


me TT ieee Poe 


Yellow = pe 
Wattlebird 


Yellow-throated 1 ee 
Honeyeater 

Other IED a Le — ee — 1 1 Ee 
Flowering 0 0 0 0 0 0 2° 5 WD Ww DW Go a io 


(% receptive) 


2 Brownslhornbill Beet em a 
Green Rosella = = ne ae 


Yellow = eae 
Wattlebird 


Other 1 1 1 So re es a ES l 


Flowering 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 15) 20 
(% receptive) 


3 Brown iThornbill }oe oe Sp oS es a ee tea eam ane 
Green Rosella Nm imme (sag 1 
Yellow-throated cree — rice — peregrine 
Honeyeater 
Other eC a ad ais ey ee ceyetce a ee eS 
Flowering 0 0 0 AY st) GC 1) SS) i) iM) i) 


(% receptive) 


4 Brown Thornbill 1 — = = = 3 ae = 2 ai 3 = a ae 1 = 
Green Rosella “= = = = — ae — a 3) 


Yellow ele mths cee ie Nie ie 
Wattlebird 

Yellow-throated Lee a adrenal emreee hs Se 
Honeyeater 

Other ee lee oe eee pee ee eee es om, Gate e e  e 
Flowering OY OO fl I> 10 A HE 25 WW) A Sn Wy 
(% receptive) 


5 Brown horn bill amiss ae et = = 1 ras FE item! in haa pit Poa 
Other 3 am l 1 Caters Pre ae, sags ran toee ya 1 a El 
Flowering oO O 0 @ @ 1 2. AV sD TD 240 a) 5 5 5 
(% receptive) 


Ambient temperature (°C) WW 7 1 it Mm Mm iW mM a 2 1M 18 18 16 jo Ww 
Wind speed (terrestrial ray see) Sy 


Beaufort scale) 
Sunlight (S full, P partial) S$ § § 5 ¢ Sic BSS eS Si 1S 
Current moisture (D Gis, 1D) ID) sf) si) iD) 40) 1D). YY iD) iD) sib) fb) fo) jo) Deed. 


W wet) 


WN 
cs 
WN 
nN 
yr 
ww 
Qe 
i) 
dy 
nS 
sy 
aN 


Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 154, 2020 27 


THE TOURIST AND TOURISM GAZES UPON CRADLE MOUNTAIN 
AND FREYCINET NATIONAL PARK 


by Chantelle Ridley 
(with four text-figures and four tables) 


Ridley, C. 2020 (9:xii): The tourist and tourism gazes upon Cradle Mountain and Freycinet National Park. Papers and Proceedings of the 


Royal Society of Tasmania 154: 27-35. ISSN: 0080-4703. 6 Braelands Court, South Hobart, Tasmania, Australia 7004. Email: 
chantelle.ridley17@gmail.com 


The natural aesthetic resource is an important element of natural and cultural heritage and an attractor of tourists. It is important for 
heritage management to understand the scenic attractors of tourists. Photographs of Cradle Mountain (150) and Freycinet National Park 
(149) were collected from a range of sources to determine whether there is a constancy of gaze between those who promote tourism and 
those who tour, and between the two visually distinct destinations. Publicly available images from four different sources were used to 
compare content attributes and mise en scéne attributes between localities using Chi-square and ANOSIM. The photographs were then 
ordinated using the same attributes, and the results were displayed using photographic average composites. The Discover Tasmania and 
Google Images photographs were similar, both better conforming to advanced compositional principles compared to the Instagram and 
promotional images, which were similar, especially in the featuring of people in landscape foregrounds. There may bea reciprocal interaction 
between promotional and tourist images, rather than a one-way process. The contrasting features in the images from the two places were 
largely a product of the very different physical environments. However, the photographs at Freycinet were taken from several geographic 
locations, whereas the vista of Dove Lake and Cradle Mountain dominated all image sources at Cradle Mountain. The content analysis of 
the images was consistent between places, except where a feature of an artefact or natural feature created opportunity for artistic expression. 
Key Words: aesthetic resource, content analysis, Discover Tasmania, Google Images, Instagram, mise en scéne, images, promotional 


images. 


INTRODUCTION 


“Nature was tamed, put into perspective with, and by, 
the human eye, as a landscape picture, a single vision 
of order.” (Urry & Larson 2011, p. 131) 


Wilderness landscapes, once terrifying and depressing, 
are now places for pleasure, solitude and contemplation 
(Schirpke et al. 2013). Natural aesthetic resources that tend 
towards the sublime (Beza 2010, Kirillova et a/. 2014) are an 
intangible asset in protected areas (Mendel & Kirkpatrick 
1999) as they attract tourists, and therefore economic 
development. 

In 2019, most tourists have the technological means 
to immediately and globally communicate their arrival 
at a tourist icon through social media via image and 
hashtagged caption. The presence of tourists at scenic 
icons may be motivated by the images of previous visitors, 
or by the images presented by professional agents. These 
sources indicate destinations in which tourists can view 
the extraordinary (Stylianou-Lambert 2012). Phelps 
(1986) classifies promotional images as secondary images 
and images generated by tourists as primary. Tourists are 
regarded as passive consumers of scenes by replicating 
the images they see in promotional material; or as active 
participants, recreating scenes through the lens of their 
own experiences (Stylianou-Lambert 2012). The latter 
perspective may be particularly apposite to social networking 
sites, such as Instagram. 


There are few published comparisons between primary 
and secondary images (Stephchenkova & Zhan 2013, Paiil . 
i Agusti 2018). Sources are usually treated independently 
and are examined through the lens of a single discipline 
(Stylianou-Lambert 2012). It is important to examine 
primary and secondary sources though a multidisciplinary 
lens, to extend our understanding of tourist behaviour and 
perception. One widely used method to quantify visual 
preferences for landscapes is content analysis (Linton 
1968, Wang et al. 2016, Tieskens et al. 2018, Pickering et 
al. 2020). Content analysis examines landscape elements 
within an image, such as quality and quantity of vegetation, 
distance to vegetation, water bodies (Shafer & Brush 
1977, Patsfall et al. 1984) and mountains (Mendel & 


Kirkpatrick 1999). 


Integrating content analysis with mise en scéne techniques 
may reveal hidden relationships previously not studied 
in destination imagery. Mise en scéne, or ‘to appear on 
stage’ is a traditional theatrical technique used to convey 
narrative and mood, via composition, lighting, setting 
and clothing (Giannetti 2014). This same technique is 
applied cinematically and photographically, within a frame. 
Preferences for, and perceptions of, desirable landscapes are 
influenced by position on the continuum from realistic 
to abstract representation in destination images (Daniel 
& Meitner 2001). 

The social media component of the study was conducted 
using the smartphone image-sharing platform ‘Instagram’, 
which allows users to share images publicly or privately. 


28 Chantelle Ridley 


Instagram was chosen because of its popularity in the 
current social climate (Choi & Sung 2018) and its use in 
recent studies on its application by tourists (University of 
Tasmania 2019). However, using Instagram has limitations 
as the samples include only images from accounts that have 
been made publicly accessible. Images are in Instagram 
using keywords that relate to either a title (user), geotag 
(location) or a hashtag (category). Location can easily and 
automatically be applied to an image if the GPS services 
are activated on the device. Hashtags are used to categorise 
the image to reach niche demographics. 

Data visualisation is the transformation of quantitative 
or qualitative data into graphic representation. When large 

and complicated data sets are transformed into aesthetic 
graphics, information becomes accessible, comparable 
and better understood among general audiences (Felton 
et al. 2016). 

Photographic averaging composites are a post processing 
method that aligns and blends photographs together 
(Felton et al. 2016). This method has been widely used to 
illustrate specific collectives, such as in portraiture to find 
the average face and the similarity of photographs taken 
of tourism icons (Felton er al. 2016, Bergh er al, 2018). 

In this study the contents and mise en scene of images 
were compared to determine whether there is a constancy 
of gaze between those who Promote tourism and those 
who tour, and between two visually distinct destinations, 
I determined whether contents and artistic designs differ 
between images collected from four distinct sources: printed 
Promotional material (i.e., tourism brochures), Discover 
Tasmania Instagram site (henceforth Discover Tasmania), 
Google Images and Instagram. I used the two most 
iconic national park destinations in Tasmania: Freycinet 


and Cradle Mountain. Photographic average composites | 


illustrate the differences between sources, © 


METHODS 
The study area 


Tasmania (41.640079°S, 146.315918°E) is an island state 
of Australia, located 240 km south of the mainland (fig. 1). 
Tasmania has a population of 529,903 (Australian Bureau 
of Statistics 2018) ina total area of 68,401 km2 (Geoscience 
Australia 2020). The rich and distinctive geodiversity and 
biodiversity of the island result in natural landscapes of 
great beauty. Tasmania has 42% (2.9 million ha) of its land 
dedicated to national parks and reserves (Tasmania Parks 
& Wildlife Service 2020) with 1.58 million ha of this in 
the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, declared 
for both cultural and natural values (DPIPWE 2016). 
Tourism campaigns promote natural features, gourmet 
produce, wildlife and the arts (Tourism Tasmania 2016). 
Before the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, tourism 
directly and indirectly contributed $3.03 billion (10.4%) to 
Tasmania’s Gross State Product (Tourism Tasmania 201 9a). 
In 2017-2018, 1.32 million people visited the state with 
307,000 international visitors and 1.09 million arriving 


FIG. 1 — The island state of Tasmania showing the study areas 
of Freycinet National Park and Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair 
National Park. 


from interstate (Tourism Tasmania 201 9a, b). International 
and interstate tourists on holiday are more likely to visit 
a national park than those visiting Tasmania for business 
activities or to visit friends and relatives (Tasmania Parks 


& Wildlife Service 2019). 
Site selection 


‘Two popular, and environmentally different, tourism icons 
were chosen for the study (fig. 1). The coastal Freycinet 
National Park has the highest number of visitors of any 
national park in the State (Tasmania Parks & Wildlife Service 
2019). The subalpine/montane Cradle Mountain, located to 
the west, is the second most visited location in the national 
park estate (Tasmania Parks & Wildlife Service 2019). 


Selection of images 


Images were selected if they satisfied the following criteria: 
* images were taken within the park boundary and 

viewpoints were accessible without overnight camping; 
* images were of landscapes. 

Images were collected from tourist information brochures, 
social media and the web using the Google Images search 
engine. All images were collected in the 2018-2019 summer 
peak tourism season. All data were manually retrieved. 

Printed promotional material was used to obtain the 
images that private companies used to attract customs 
ers. This material consisted of brochures advertising 
accommodation and private tours. Printed promotional 
material was collected from three tourist information 
centres in Tasmania in February 2019. All images from 
the study areas were used. 

A Google Images search on the web was conducted using 
variants of the locality names. The keywords ‘Freycinet 


The tourist and tourism gazes upon Cradle Mountain and Freycinet National Park 29 


and ‘Cradle Mountain’ received the highest number of 
images. It was assumed that images that first appeared in 
the search would be more likely to represent professional 
material, as advanced development of their website/image 
allowed the image to be there in the first place. Images 
were sampled sequentially from the first image. 

For Instagram (i.e., a photo and video sharing social 
networking service owned by Facebook), it was decided 
that location was to be used to select images as more 
images per day were uploaded using location than those 
hashtagged. Images were selected from ‘Freycinet National 
Park’ and ‘Cradle Mountain’, between 1 October 2018 
and 31 March 2019, using a random number generator. 

Tourism Tasmania’ Official Instagram account “Discover 
Tasmania (https://www.instagram.com/tasmania/) was used 
to represent destination images promoted by the State 
Government. ‘Discover Tasmania is created through user- 
generated content where hashtagging #discovertasmania or 
#tassiestyle, gives permission for the organisation to use 
the image in online promotions. 

Two hundred and ninety-nine images were sampled (table 
1). All were freely available to the public. One hundred 
images were from promotional/professional sources, 100 
from recreational and 99 from a professional source using 
recreational user-generated images. A running mean for 
the presence of water in randomly selected images from 
the selection was calculated. The presence of water in 
an image equalled one and its absence zero. This mean 
stabilised at around 25 images. The process was repeated 
with mountains, with the same outcome. 


Content analysis — location and subjects 


The most popular viewpoints for each media type at Cradle 


and Freycinet were determined using the author's know- 
ledge of the areas. Local knowledge was required to assess the 
location of the image. Location was coded as marine, ifit was 
taken on the water, and by the nearest geographical feature 
if terrestrial. When available, captions and hashtags were 
used to cross-validate these data. The percentage of images 
taken at each geographical location in each national park 
was calculated to determine which were the most popular 
sites to photograph across all media sources and within and 
between national parks (fig. 2a and 2b). 

The presence/absence of landscape elements were 
recorded. These were: water bodies, mountains and vege- 
tation as a feature (e.g., tree trunks, shrubbery, cushion 


plant). The measurement method of Oktas was used to 
determine cloud cover and as an estimate of the weather 
conditions: clear: 0-10%, scattered: 10-50%, broken: 50— 
90%: overcast: 90-100%. Artefacts included menuments 
(lighthouse, shed, accommodation, hut), infrastructure 
(boardwalk, trail, railing, sign), transportation (boat, car, 
plane, kayak, paddleboard), natural features (rock, geology, 
driftwood, milky way), weather phenomena (snow, mirrored 
reflections on still water), animals and toys. 


Mise en scéne criteria 


The mise en scéne component of lighting, conveying mood, 
tone and focus within the frame was captured in six time-of- 
day categories (sunrise, early morning, day, late afternoon, 
sunset, night). Shot and camera proxemics describe how 
much of the subject is in the frame and how much of 
the human subject is within the frame. Each image was 
classified as either terrestrial, marine or aerial. The nature 
of the composition of the image was recorded for each of: 
the rule of thirds in which the subject matter is organised 
in nine equal rectangles, with important details placed off 
centre where the lines intersect; the use of the golden rule; 
the use of geometric features in the image; the use of features 
as leading lines; central location; and, split design in which 


there is symmetry in the image. Three characteristic depths 
of field were recorded. 


Data analysis 


Chi-squared was used for individual class variables to 
determine whether there was deviation from random in 
data related to source (promotional, Instagram, Discover 
‘Tasmania and Google Images) or location (Freycinet, Cradle 
Mountain). Pearson’s Method was used to determine the p 
value. These analyses were done in Minitab18. 
Non-metric multidimensional scaling was used to 
ordinate the images using the qualitative (1/0) content and 
mise en scéne variables listed above. The default options 
in DECODA were used for this process. An ANOSIM 
analysis of differences between the combination of places 
and sources was undertaken in DECODA using the scores 
on the four dimensions of the ordination with the use of 
10,000 permutations to calculate the probabilities associated 
with the R statistic. In all analyses the null hypothesis was 


“rejected if p < 0.05. 


TABLE 1 — The most photographed locales at Cradle Mountain and 
Freycinet National Park by source, showing the number of images for the 
source by locality. 


Image source 


Freycinet National Park 


Cradle Mountain 


No. Most Frequent No. Most Frequent 
Promotional 7/22 Wineglass Lookout 6/23 Dove Lake 
Google Images 9/28 Freycinet Peninsula 5/27 Dove Lake 
Instagram 11/50 Wineglass Lookout 8/50 Dove Lake 
Discover Tasmania 10/49 Mount Amos 11/50 Dove Lake 


30 Chantelle Ridley 


y fo = Legend 
/* Pencil 
f Pine 
S Cradle 
— * Valley 
F Boardwalk 
Cradle 
e Valley 
Lake 
Lilla 
Crater @ Dove Lake 
lake. Marions Lookout 
Cradle ® 
Plateau ¢ Hansons 
Peak 
e 
Screenshot Cradle 
. Mountain 
Cradle Mountain - 
Lake St Clair 
National Park 
f * Barn 
NS Bluff — A 
2 km 


Legend 


@ 11-15% 


Friendly 


° Beaches 
\ @ 6-10% 


© 1-5% 
° <0.99% 


t Tasman 


\ Sea 


Bluestone Bay 


} Cape 


fee * Tourville 
Richardsons Beach 4 
Sleepy Ba 
Honeymoon Bay @ : Pyenoy, 
ae 
Seis Mount 
4 @ Amos 
Wineglass Bay @ 


Lookout 


Screenshot 


Wineglass Bay Beach 
4 ® Wineglass Bay 


Hazards Beach* 


Freycinet 
National 


Park 
\ Mount 
N Freycinet + 


2 km 


* Mount B 
Graham 


FIG. 2 — Percentage of images taken at geographical locations across all media sources at (A) Cradle Mountain and 


(B) Freycinet, Tasmania. 


Creation of photographic average composites 


The photographic average composites (PAC) were based on 
the significant results derived from the mise en scéne and 
content analysis. The process was applied to one or a few 
locales with the highest frequency of images. The iconic 
landscape value informed the centre point. Having this 
visual anchor creates greater harmony in the PAC and a 
pivot for the remaining scene to play out. 

To construct the PAC, landscape long shot images of 
the most photographed locale were selected from each 
source type. Printed promotional material was not used to 
construct a PAC as it required digitisation and there was 
excess visual noise with the graphic design. 

Images were not resized so as to retain the quality of 
the information. PAC were constructed on a large blank 
project and were not cropped in the final presentation. 
This was both an aesthetic and data integrity decision, 
as the final presentation revealed information about the 
original orientation of the images. The one exception to 
this rule were the Google Images shots of Freycinet. These 
images were aerial and therefore did not have an optimal 
viewpoint or consistency in landscape shot types. Due to 
a low number of images, all shot types had to be utilised. 
‘The decision to resize the images was based on aesthetics, 
as the alterations created a more visually harmonious PAC. 


Images that are closest to the front of the stack provide 
the details (Felton er al. 2016). 


RESULTS 


Freycinet had a higher number of locales photographed 
compared to Cradle Mountain (table 1, fig. 2). Thirty percent 
of the 299 images that were photographed were at Dove 
Lake below Cradle Mountain, followed by Mount Amos 
(14%), Wineglass Bay Lookout (8%) and Honeymoon Bay 
(6.4%) all at Freycinet. The most photographed locale was 
constant between sources for Cradle Mountain (table 1). 

The stress for the four-dimensional ordination was 
0.163. The overall ANOSIM R value for the differentiation 
by source and place was 0.0276 (p = 0.012). There was 
significant differentiation between all combinations of 
place and medium with Discover Tasmania and Instagram 
images (table 2). There was also significant differentiation 
between all combinations of place and medium with 
promotional images and Google Images (table 2). Thus, 
Discover Tasmania images were similar to Google and 
promotional images. Instagram images were also similar to 
Google and promotional images. Promotional images and 
Google Images shots were similar to Discover Tasmania 
and Instagram images (table 2). 


The tourist and tourism gazes upon Cradle Mountain and Freycinet National Park 31 


TABLE 2 — Combinations of place and source that were significantly different on the 
four-dimensional ordination scores for all qualitative variables (ANOSIM R-statistic). 


DF DC IF IC PF PC GF GC 
DF i * * 4K oa 2 i = 
DC * xX * KK ia a a 2 
IF * * xe * = ‘ es a 
IC 2K 210K * xX S 2 s ee 
PF a a = me X * OK 210K 
PC us on ~ jak * Xe 7K * 
GF a es ve a 20K OK XG OK 
GC a a 4s = OK * 20K X 


*™* = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p =/< 0.05, - = p > 0.05. X marks no results as self-comparison. DF = 
Discovery Tasmania/Freycinet, DC = Discovery Tasmania/Cradle, IF = Instagram/Freycinet, IC = Instagram/ 


Cradle, PF = Promotional/Freycinet, PC = Promotional/Cradle, GF = Google/Freycinet, GC = Google/ 
Cradle. 


TABLE 3 — The percentage frequency of content and mise en scéne 
variables by source for those that vary significantly (Chi-squared). 
Variable Discover Google Instagram Promotional  P-Value 
_____ Tasmania _ Images 
Extended long shot 14 29! 6 20 <0.001 


Geometry 34 20 22 4 <0.001 
Thirds 17 51 32 76 <0.001 
Terrestrial 88 82 95 98 0.012 
Water 82 98 89 82 0.020 
Mountains 87 68 89 0.001 
Day 44 0h 86 93 <0.001 
Very wide shot figure 33 ll 16 38 <0.001 


' The higher percentage is shown in bold. 


TABLE 4 — The percentage frequency of content and 
mise en scéne variables by place for those that varied 
significantly (Chi-squared). 


Variable Cradle Freycinet P-Value 
Geometry vw 2. oon 
Spite 12 5 0.023 
Terrestrial 100 81 <0.001 
Aerial 0 13 <0.001 
Water . 78 97 <0.001 
Mountains 86 Vidi 0.035 
Scattered clouds 26 42 0.003 
Broken clouds 25 15 0.046 
Landscape vegetation 92 97 0.041 
Feature vegetation 16 7 0.011 
Medium close-up 11 3 0.006 
figures 

Boardwalk” 12 5 0.023 
Rock 13 23 0.015 
Reflection 7 : 0 _ 0,001 


' The higher percentage is shown in bold. 


32 Chantelle Ridley 


FIG. 3 — Photographic average composites (PAC) of Dove Lake, Cradle Mountain, Tasmania. PAC were created from the overlay of 
multiple images sourced from (A) Discover Tasmania; (B) Instagram; and (C) Google Images search. 


‘The Discover Tasmania images had the highest percentages 
of geometric design (table 3). The Google Images shots had 
the highest percentages of extended long. landscape shots 
and the greatest proportion of presence of water (table 
3). The promotional images had the highest proportions 
of composition by thirds, terrestrial scenes, mountains, 
daytime shots and very wide shot figures (table 3). 

Most of the differences between the images taken at 
Cradle Mountain and those at Freycinet reflected differences 
in their physical environment, some possible exceptions 
being more medium close-up figures and split images at 
Cradle Mountain and more aerial shots and use of geometric 
composition at Freycinet (table 4). 

The PACs of Cradle Mountain differed in the contrast 
between dawn and dusk skies in the Discover Tasmania 
images (fig. 3A), compared to clear daytime skies in the 
Google (fig. 3C) and Instagram images (fig. 3B), and 
the wider frame and greater complexity of the Google 

PAC compared to the others. At Freycinet, the most 
popular Discover Tasmania image was from Mt Amos, 
with Wineglass Bay sitting like a lake below, framed by 
mountains (fig. 4A). The most popular Instagram image 


was from the Wineglass Bay lookout (fig. 4B). The most 


popular Google Image was of Wineglass Bay from the 
south (fig. 4C). 


DISCUSSION 


This study highlights the complex feedbacks between 
promotional/ professional images and tourist images. The 
current rise in user-generated content for advertising (or 
‘influencing’ as it has been repackaged) through social media, 
has added complexity into image sources and their feedbacks 
beyond the simple influence model (Stephchenkova & 
Zhan 2013). 

It was expected that Google Image shots and promotional 
material would represent the professional aspect of the study, 
and Instagram and Discover Tasmania would represent 
the perceptions of the tourist. However, the images from 
Discover Tasmania were very similar to professional material 
and promotional images. Despite Discover Tasmania 
images being sourced from Instagram, the former had 
a closer relationship to the artistic Google Images than 


| 
| 
| 
q 


The tourist and tourism gazes upon Cradle Mountain and Freycinet National Park 33 


FIG. 4 — Photographic average composites (PAC) of (A) Mount Amos; (B) Wineglass Bay lookout; and (C) Freycinet Peninsula at 
Freycinet National Park, Tasmania. PAC were created from the overlay of multiple images sourced from (A) Discover Tasmania; (B) 


Instagram; and (C) Google Images searches. 


to those in the Instagram pool. As Instagram were more 
related to Google Images and promotional material, it 


_ is likely that the images from the Instagram pool were 


those that conformed to mise en scéne principles and a 
particular aesthetic related to time of day. Google Images 
and promotional material were related to Instagram and 
Discover Tasmania, emphasising that there is a complicated 
feedback process between image sources. 

While tourists may be influenced to seek the reality of 
an image, they may not necessarily be able to seek the 
optimal photographic timing (Stylianou-Lambert 2012). 
because of a short visit ora lack of compositional skills. The 
Discover Tasmania PAC of Cradle Mountain is reminiscent 
of paintings from the Romantic period containing 
uncultivated and undeveloped landscape, mood lighting, 
warm hues and figures dwarfed by the landscape (fig. 3a). 
The romantic gaze symbolises solitude and undisturbed 
natural beauty (Urry 2005, Pan et al. 2014). Tourism 
images have been also been Sound to prefer warmer hues 
(Yu et al. 2020). 


The high degree of similarity of promotional material 
to Instagram shots may indicate that the creators of the 
material have a strong understanding of tourist preferences 
or that images used in promotions were created by tourists. 
User-generated content is believed to have high authenticity, 
and therefore more likely to induce feelings and behaviours 
generated by emotions such as envy and desire than more 
professional work (Hajli et a/, 2018). Tourists, therefore, 
may be both the consumer and the producer (Stylianou- 
Lambert 2012). 

Previous studies have highlighted that the perception 
of beauty is influenced by social and cultural climate 
(Urry & Larsen 2011). Natural features, artefacts and 
photographic technique were largely constant between the 
two tourist icons, suggesting a constancy of society and 
culture. Natural features such as vegetation and mountains 
in this study were depicted using geometric shape and 
symmetry. Natural features such as the curvature of a 
beach and the mirrored reflection of a lake senile a 
strong base for composition. 


34 Chantelle Ridley 


Tourists desire the unspoilt and remote (Stylianou- 
Lambert 2012), preferably containing relative relief 
and water (Mendel & Kirkpatrick 1999). Indicators of 
development are often omitted (Stylianou-Lambert 2012). 
However, I sampled images that were taken by tourists that 
featured artefacts. Artefacts, such as wooden boardwalks, 
when snaking off into the distance or between trees, can 
have aesthetic appeal. The information from tourist images 


can help architects design artefacts that are less obtrusive, © 


or even attractive, in a landscape. 

Discover Tasmania had a high incidence in traditional 
landscape techniques of advanced composition and 
conscious timing of day for optimal lighting. As they are 
mise en scéne elements, it could be inferred that Discover 
Tasmania was biased towards ‘mood’ images, which is 
reinforced by the PAC. The aquamarine water and white 
sand beaches highlighted in the PAC reveal that colour, hue, 
brightness and saturation is a mise en scéne element that 
is worth consideration in future studies (Yu et al. 2020). 

Google Image’s advanced landscape camera shots, 
perspective and inclusion of artefacts and landscape 
elements, reflects advanced photographic equipment 
and technique. The traditional photographic landscape 
technique is further reflected in the homogeneity of 
landscape orientation in the PAC. The mise en scéne in the 
Google Images shots contrasts with Discover Tasmania in 
offering a new perspective and enhanced landscape detail. 
Although time of day did not differ between Freycinet and 
Cradle Mountain, visual analysis of the PAC reveals that 
the average time of day was early in the morning when 
light was still of photographic quality. Landscapes that 
contained mountains and water, were more desirable than 
the exclusive framing of a mountain or water Gridien et 
al. 2016), while beaches that are deserted and pristine are 
highly desirable (Stylianou-Lambert 2012). The rustic shed 
at Dove Lake adds further appeal, like water, by softening 
the sharpness of the mountain. 

Promotional material was similar to Google Images 
shots in relation to perspective and landscape elements. 
Mountains were found to be of high incidence; however, 
the limitation of this finding is that, at Cradle Mountain, 
the mountain is of iconic landscape value, whereas the 
mountain range at Freycinet serves more as a backdrop to 
the iconic landscape value of Wineglass Bay. 

Instagram contrasted with Google Images, promotional 
material and Discover Tasmania in that the content was 
centralised around a human figure in the landscape. A 
mid shot places emphasis on the figure while keeping the 
background visible. The tourist gaze produces images that 
allow one to be seen in the desirable location (Hajli et al. 
2018). It is striking that the PAC are very similar in visual 
appearance between Freycinet and Cradle Mountain. The 
images are clustered together, suggesting that the majority 
are taken from a similar viewpoint; the overall colour of 
the images is similar as majority of images are taken during 
the day and adhere to the traditional landscape format. 
‘The PAC reaffirm the aforementioned notion that tourists 
travel to see the iconic landscape value irrespective of the 
time of day. Image conventions are passed on through 


advertising and promotional material, influencing the 
tourist gaze (Stylianou-Lambert 2012). As an example, 
the Instagram and Google PAC bear strong a similarity in 
framing, orientation and content. It could also be argued 
that these visual conventions were established in painting, 
decades before the invention of photography (Urry & 


Larsen 2011). 

An unexpected finding of this present study, revealed by 
the PAC, was the influence of photographic equipment on 
the tourist gaze. This effect is most clearly illustrated in the 
Cradle Mountain PACs which successively shorten in scene 
down the cascade of technical ability from Google Images, 
to Discover Tasmania to Instagram. When comparing the 
Cradle Mountain and Freycinet Instagram PACs, it is 


striking that they bear such a strong resemblance. 
Visualisation of data through the PAC technique is a 


new method to validate content and mise en scéne analysis. 
It is an exciting way to reveal patterns and relationships 
previously not considered and to visualise data sets for 


science communication. 


REFERENCES 


Australian Bureau of Statistics 2018: Australian Demographic 
Statistics. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. 
htt s://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/ 
3101.0Media%20Release1 Dec%202018. 

Bergh, R., Eyck, G., Eijck, G. & Naafs, S. 2018: To Infinity 
and Beyond. Breda: The Eriskay Connection, Amsterdam: 
232 pp. 

Beza, B. 2010: The aesthetic value of a mountain landscape: 
a study of the Mt. Everest Trek. Landscape and Urban 
Planning 97: 306-317. 

Choi, T. & Sung, Y. 2018: Instagram versus Snapchat: Self- 
expression and privacy concern on social media. Telematics 
and Informatics 35(8): 2289-2298. 

Daniel, T. & Meitner, M. 2001: Representational validity of 
landscape visualizations: The effects of graphical realism 
on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. Journal of 
Environmental Psychology 21: 61-72. 

DPIPWE 2016: Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area 
Management Plan 2016, Department of Primary Industries, 
Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart: 240 pp 

Felton, N., Ehmann, S. & Klanten, R. 2016: Photoviz. Gestalten, 
Berlin: 256 pp. 

Geoscience Australia 2020: Area Of Australia - States And Territories, 
https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/national-location- 
information/dimensions/area-of-australia-states-and- 
territories (accessed 20 September 2020). 

Giannetti, L. 2014. Understanding Movies. 13th edn. Pearson 
Education Inc., London: 550 pp. 

Hajli, N., Wang, Y. & Tajvidi, M. 2018: Travel envy on social 
networking sites. Annals of Tourism Research 73: 184-189. 

Kirillova, K., Fu, X., Lehto, X. & Cai, L. 2014: What makes 
a destination beautiful? Dimensions of tourist aesthetic 
judgment. Tourism Management 42: 282-293. 

Linton, D. 1968: The assessment of scenery as a natural resource. 
Scottish Geographical Magazine 84: 219-238. 

Mendel, L. & Kirkpatrick, J.B. 1999: Assessing temporal changes 
in the reservation of the natural aesthetic resource using 
pictorial content analysis and a grid-based scoring system 
— the example of Tasmania, Australia. Landscape and Urban 


Planning 43: 181-190. 


The tourist and tourism gazes upon Cradle Mountain and Freycinet National Park 35 


Pan, S., Lee, J. & Tsai, H. 2014: Travel photos: Motivations, 
image dimensions, and affective qualities of places. Tourism 
Management 40: 59-69. 

Patsfall, M., Feimer, N., Buhyoff, G. & Wellman, J. 1984: The 
prediction of scenic beauty from landscape content and 
composition. Journal of Environmental Psychology 4: 7-26. 

Paiil i Agusti, D. 2018: Characterizing the location of tourist 
images in cities. Differences in user-generated images 
(Instagram), official tourist brochures and travel guides. 
Annals of Tourism Research 73: 103-115. 

Phelps, A. 1986: Holiday destination image - the problem of 
assessment. Tourism Management 8: 168-180. 

Pickering, C., Chelsey, W.S., Barros, A. & Rossic, $.D. 2020: 
Using social media images and text to examine how tourists 
view and value the highest mountain in Australia. Journal 
of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 29: 1-12. 

Schirpke, U., Tasser, E. & Tappeiner, U. 2013: Predicting scenic 
beauty of mountain regions. Landscape and Urban Planning 
111: 1-12. 

Shafes, E. & Brush, R. 1977: How to measure preferences for 
photographs of natural landscapes. Landscape Planning 
4: 237-256. 

Smrekar, A., Polajnar Horvat, K. & Erhartié, B. 2016: The beauty 
of landforms. Acta Geographica Slovenica 56: 321-335. 

Stephchenkova, S. & Zhan, F. 2013: Visual destination images 
of Peru: comparative content analysis of DMO and user- 
generated photography. Tourism Management 36: 590-601. 

Stylianou-Lambert, T. 2012: Tourists with cameras. Annals of 
Tourism Research 39: 1817-1838. 

Tasmania Parks & Wildlife Service 2019: Visitors To Selected Parks 
& Reserves 2018-2019, https://parks.tas.gov.au/Documents/ 
Visitors%20t0o%20selected%20parks%20%26%20 
reserves%202018-2019.pdf (accessed 20 September 2020). 


Tasmania Parks & Wildlife Service 2020: About the Tasmania 
Parks and Wildlife Service | Parks & Wildlife Service 
Tasmania, https://parks.tas.gov.au/about-us (accessed 19 
September 2020). 

Tieskens, K., Van Zanten, B., Schulp, C. & Verburg, P. 2018: 

. Aesthetic appreciation of the cultural landscape through 
social media: an analysis of revealed preference in the 
Dutch river landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 

_ 177: 128-137. 

Tourism Tasmania 2016: Asia Engagement Marketing Strategy. 
Tourism Tasmania, Hobart: 25 pp. 

Tourism Tasmania 2019a: Tourism Fast Facts. Tourism Tasmania, 
Hobart: 1 pp. 

Tourism Tasmania 2019b: Tourism Research. Tourism Tasmania, 
Hobart. https://www.tourismtasmania.com.au/__data/ 
assets/pdf_file/0008/84635/2019-Q2-Tasmanian-Tourism- 
Snapshot-June-2019-TVS-IVS-NVS. pdf 

University of Tasmania 2019. Understanding Social Media Use in 
The Sensing Tourist Travel Study - Tourism Tracer, https:// 
tourismtracer.com/understanding-social-media-use-in-the- 
sensing-tourist-travel-study/ (accessed 21 March 2019). 

Urry, J. 1995: Consuming Places. Routledge, London: 264 pp. 

Urry, J. & Larsen, J. 2011: The Tourist Gaze 3.0. SAGE Publications 
Ltd., London: 282 pp. 

Wang, R., Zhao, J. & Liu, Z. 2016: Consensus in visual preferences: 
The effects of aesthetic quality and landscape types. Urban 
Forestry & Urban Greening 20: 210-217. 

Yu, C., Xie, S. & Wen, J. 2020: Coloring the destination: The role 


_ of color psychology on Instagram. Tourism Management 
80: 104-110. 


(accepted 30 September 2020) 


Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 154, 2020 


BLACK RATS ERADICATED FROM BIG GREEN ISLAND 
IN BASS STRAIT, TASMANIA 


by Susan Robinson and Wayne Dick 
(with four text-figures and four tables) 


Robinson, S. & Dick, W. 2020 (9:xii): Black Rats eradicated from Big Green Island in Bass Strait, Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of 
the Royal Society of Tasmania 154: 37-45. ISSN: 0080-4703. Biosecurity Tasmania, 13 St Johns Avenue, New Town, Tasmania 


7008, Australia (SR*); Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service, Furneaux Field Centre, 2 Lagoon Road, Whitemark, Tasmania 7255, 
Australia (WD). *Author for correspondence. Email: sue.robinson@dpipwe.tas.gov.au 


Big Green Island is a 129-ha Nature Reserve and part of the Furneaux Group of islands in Bass Strait, southeastern Australia. Beginning 
in April 2016, Black Rats Rattus rattus were targeted for eradication using poisoning with 50 ppm brodifacoum wax blocks via a 25 x 
25 m grid of bait stations (16 stations per ha) checked daily for a four-week period followed by three one-week visits over an eight-week 
period. After six weeks, rodent chew-cards were deployed exposing pockets of rat activity on the island. Island-wide monitoring led to the 
capture of six rats, the last known rat being killed in November 2016. Monitoring for signs of rats proceeded for a further two years and 


the island was declared rat-free in November 2018. The project encompassed partnerships between government agencies, industry and 
non-government organisations, and involved a significant volunteer contribution. 


Key Words: island eradication, invasive species, rodent, Black Rat, Rattus rattus, brodifacoum, bait station. 


INTRODUCTION 


In 2006 the Australian Government listed exotic rodents 
(Black or Ship Rats Rattus rattus, Norway or Brown Rats R. 
norvegicus; Pacific Rats R. exulans; and House Mouse Mus 
musculus) on islands as a key threatening process under the 
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 
1999 (EPBC Act). A threat abatement plan for invasive rats 
and mice on islands less than 100,000 ha (Commonwealth 
of Australia 2009) was subsequently developed. The state of 
Tasmania has over 600 vegetated islands around its coast- 
line, with at least 39 known to have invasive rodents and 
probably more with unrecorded populations. 

Tasmania’s first island eradication for rodents (Black 
Rats) was on Fisher Island (1 ha) in 1974 (Serventy 1977). 
The next was Macquarie Island (12,800 ha) for Black Rat 
and House Mouse (plus European Rabbit Oryctolagus 
cuniculus) in 2011 (Springer 2016). Fisher Island again 
had rodents eradicated in 2013 (House Mouse and Black 
Rat, S. Robinson unpublished data). 

The Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS) 
identified there would be significant environmental and 
economic gains in eradicating Black Rats from Big Green 
Island Nature Reserve (129 ha) in the Furneaux Group, 
Bass Strait. The two islets immediately north of the main 
island were considered potential habitats for small species of 


seabirds (e.g., Fairy Tern Sterna nereis, White-faced Storm ° 


Petrel Pelagodroma marina and Common Diving Petrel 
Pelecanoides urinatrix) which were likely to be prevented 
from successfully breeding by the presence of rats. The 
economic gains from eradicating rats were that the cost 
of ongoing control through baiting by the PWS would no 
longer be required, and the reduction in pasture seed loss 
to rats would be a gain for the island’s lessee. 

The Black Rat has a global distribution and is listed among 
the worst invasive species in the world (Global Invasive 


Species Database 2019). They likely arrived in Australia 
with Dutch ships in the 1600s and fully established with 
European settlement in the 1780s (Banks & Hughes 2012). 
Black Rats are generalist omnivores, a trait shared with 
many successful vertebrate pests. They will eat almost any 
food up to their own body weight including vegetation, 
seeds, invertebrates, small vertebrates and the eggs and 
young of larger vertebrates (Banks & Hughes 2012). 
The direct impacts of Black Rat on wildlife are not well 
documented, with much of the evidence recorded through 
the recovery of native species after rats are eradicated from 
islands, particularly in New Zealand (Towns etal. 2006). 

An adult Black Rat weighs up to 225 g and lives about 
a year. The species has a gestation period of 21 days and 
weans its young at around 20 days. A female can have 5-10 
young per litter and produce up to six litters per year in 
ideal conditions (Van Dyck & Strahan 2008). 


SITE DETAILS 
Description 


Situated in Bass Strait, 3 km west of Flinders Island, the 
main island of the Big Green Island group is 125 ha, mostly 
granite and gently rising to 30 m (fig. 1). The island was 
intensively managed to provide food for the Aboriginal 
settlement at Wybalena from the 1830s, including sheep, 
rabbits, Cape Barren Goose (Cereopsis novaehollandiae), 
Short-tailed Shearwaters (Ardenna tenuirostris) and their 
eggs (Backhouse 1843). The vegetation is now mostly non- 
native pasture species fringed by a coastal strip of native 
‘Tussock Grass (Austrostipa stipoides) (Harris et al. 2001). 
‘There is a patch of succulent herbfield in the north and 
invasive African Boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) along the 
northeastern bay, east coast and scattered across the group 


38 Susan Robinson and Wayne Dick 


Flinders 


146°E| 


FIG. 1 — Location of Big Green Island relative to Tasmania and 
Flinders Island. 


(Harris et a/, 2001). The islets to the north, which are joined 
by a rocky isthmus at low tides, maintain an assemblage 
of native plant species including Tussock Grass, Saltbush 
(Atriplex sp.) and succulents (Sclerostegia sp. shrubs). The 
main island is fully accessible by foot and the nearby islets 
require low tides for access. 

The freehold island was sold to the PWS in 1980 and 
declared a Nature Reserve to establish a secure breeding site 
for Cape Barren Geese which had a declining population at 
the time. Sheep grazing continued under a lease agreement 
to maintain the short grass that is favoured by geese. The 
island has two cottages and a shearing shed that are used 
by the island’s lessee on a regular basis. Access is by boat 
from Whitemark, Flinders Island, 6 km to the northeast. 

An estimated 22,000 pairs of Short-tailed Shearwater 
and 400 pairs of Little Penguin (Eudyptula minor) breed 
on Big Green Island (Brothers et a/. 2001). Other breeding 
seabirds include low numbers of Pacific (Larus pacificus) 
and Silver Gulls (LZ. novaehollandiae), Pied (Haemotopus 
longirostris) and Sooty Oyster-catchers (H. fuliginosus), 
Black-faced Cormorant (Phalacrocorax _fuscescens), Caspian 
Tern (Sterna caspia) (Brothers et al, 2001) and around 26 
breeding pairs of Cape Barren Goose (G. Hocking pers. 
comm.). 

It is unknown when rats arrived, but they likely came 
with the first settlers to the island in the 1830s. European 
Rabbit were introduced in 1832 (Backhouse 1843) and 


died out due to drought around 1914 (D. Cooper pers. 
comm.). House Mouse were reported around buildings on 
the island between 1965 and 1968 (Norman 1970) but 
none have been recorded since then. Flinders Island (3 
km away) has Black Rat, Brown Rat and House Mouse. 


Rodent baiting history 


Rodent control has been undertaken on Big Green Island 
sporadically since 1984 by the current lessee. Rats were 
a significant problem for pasture regeneration due to the 
consumption of seed-heads. Purchased seed was spoiled 


- through gnawing of packaging and consumed when newly 


sown. Rodent baiting with sodium monofluroacetate (i.e. 
1080) occurred from 1984. From the initial trials with 
1080, a regime of frequent poisoning was developed (two 
to three times a year) using a gridded network of over 
700 bait stations (halved plastic 20-litre sheep drench 
containers). By 1996 the rat population had increased 
markedly despite continued poisoning. Brodifacoum baits 
were used until 2003, followed by flocoumafen in 2004. 
In 2008, Aegis-RP lockable bait stations were installed 
to replace the ageing drench containers. An eradication 
attempt occurred at about this time using one of the second- 
generation rodenticides but was likely unsuccessful due 
to stations not being regularly refilled beyond the initial 
bait-take because of difficulties accessing the island and 
stations not being deployed on the nearby western islet 
which connected to the main island at low tide. 
Development of a rodent eradication plan for Big Green 
Island by PWS and Biosecurity Tasmania, both divisions 
within the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water 
and Environment (DPIPWE) commenced in 2013. In 2014 
it was decided that all poison bait in the bait stations on 
the island needed to be removed as soon as practicable to 
reduce the possibility of rodents becoming physiologically 
tolerant to toxins due to consumption of sub-lethal doses 
of degrading bait. Flocoumafen and bromadiolone poison 
blocks were used until stations were removed in January 


2015. 


METHODS 


The eradication project was managed by the PWS Flinders 
Island Field Centre with technical advice provided by 
Biosecurity Tasmania. A feasibility study was completed in 
January 2015 (Robinson & Dick 2015) and recommended 
ground baiting with stations. An operational plan (Robinson 
& Dick 2016) was finalised in February 2016 after being 
independently reviewed. In January 2015, 864 lockable 
plastic bait stations were collected, cleared of bait and 
cleaned. A low number of stations (c. 10) in thick vegetation 
were not located during this collection. In March 2016, an 
additional 1,193 new plastic rodent bait stations (Aeg#s) were 
taken by barge to the island. 

The GPS-linked field data management program 
Fulcrum (www.fulcrumapp.com) was selected to manage the 
installation of stations on a 25 x 25 m grid (i.e.,16 stations/ 


Black Rats eradicated from Big Green Island in Bass Strait, Tasmania. 39 


ha) and bait delivery to this array. Data were recorded in 
real time and available to the baiting team once uploaded 
through the mobile phone network. Over 2,200 bait 
stations were installed by staff and volunteers between 8 
and 13 March 2016 using mobile phone network-linked 
hand-held devices (iPads, Apple) preloaded with Fulcrum 
and a purpose-built eradication application (‘app’) with grid 
points on a Google Earth base-map. The accuracy of iPad 
GPS is described as 3-6 m, but it was usually within 1-2 
m. Additional stations were installed around the buildings, 
increasing the density to a 12.5 m grid over 6.25 ha as a 
contingency for mice. It was decided the buildings would 
be the most likely place for mice, if still present on the 
island. A second Fulcrum ‘app’ was developed in June 2016 
for tracking the location and use of monitoring devices 
across the island. 

Islets and outcrops joined to the main island at low tide 
also had bait stations installed. Additional stations were 
placed around the coast giving a total of 2,208 bait stations 
by the end of May 2016. Stations were anchored using 
a 12°cm metal spike or a suitable rock. About 100 g of 
commercial rodent food pellets (Peckish™) were added to 
each station and left for five weeks to assist the habituation 
of rats to entering stations. Twenty rats were trapped for 
DNA as recommended by Broome et al. (2011) in March 
2016. Bird and invertebrate surveys were conducted during 
April-May 2016 but are not reported on here. Sheep 
remained on the island for the duration of the program. 


Baiting strategy 


The baiting strategy was to use a grid of bait stations across 
the island with brodifacoum as the active ingredient in 
wax bait blocks as developed through discussions with the 
Tasmanian PWS staff, eradication experts in New Zealand, 
and from the ‘Agreed Best Practice for using Bait Stations 
(Broome et al. 2011). Stations were to have bait available 
for four weeks and checked daily, followed by another eight 
weeks of less frequent checking. It was recommended that 
baiting could cease one month after the last known bait-take 
and, if all went well, this would occur within the 12-week 
baiting period. Because the situation with House Mouse 
was unresolved, bait station spacing was reduced from the 
recommended 50 m (Broome et al. 2011) to a grid of 25 x 
25 m. Though this was not a proven spacing for eradicating 
mice, it would likely provide a greater chance of success 
with mice if they were present, than 50 m. The alternatives 
were not considered feasible (i-e., 10 m grid spacing or aerial 
baiting). In addition, a 6.25 ha area around the buildings, 
the most likely place for mice if they were not island-wide, 
had the bait station grid reduced further to 12.5 m. 
Stations were to be installed several weeks in advance of 
baiting to minimise neophobia in rats around the new bait 


stations and for baiting to begin in autumn. ‘The breeding . 


season of rats on Big Green Island was unknown but it was 
considered less likely they would be breeding in autumn 
and winter. Even if breeding was occurring, the strategy of 
maintaining baits in stations for 12 weeks should ensure 
any emerging juvenile rats would be exposed to bait. 


Baiting 


Talon X-Pro (Selleys) 20 g wax blocks containing 50 ppm 
brodifacoum were secured in stations from 26 April, with 
the addition of X- Verminator (Daviesway) c. 18g blocks (50 
ppm brodifacoum) from 18 May onwards. Stations had bait 
checked and replenished daily from 26 April-22 May 2016 
(28 days) followed by checks from 6-11 June, 20-26 June, 
and 4—10 July. Up to six teams of two people checked and 
replenished all bait stations every 1.5—2 days. A minimum, 
of two baits were provided per station, but some had up to 
six baits at a time being consumed and these were replaced 
as needed. Baiting required volunteer teams of at least ten 
people for three consecutive ten-day shifts (equating to 28 
days) followed by three further one-week shifts with at least 
six volunteers as described above. A total of 56 volunteers 
and six staff were engaged over the baiting phase of the 
project. A commercial supplier provided 200 kg of Talon 
X-Pro and agreed to hold an additional 200 kg in stock but 
this was not available when required. X-Verminator was 
used in its place. A Minor Use permit from the Australian 
Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority was required 
for brodifacoum baits to be used for an ‘off-label’ application 
(i.e., away from buildings) and covered the use of both Talon 
X-Pro and X-Verminator. 

During station checks, data on bait added to stations were 
entered into the Fulcrum ‘app’ so that bait consumption 
could be calculated. Minimal or zero consumption of 
the second bait X-Verminator occurred due to the rat 
population being near zero when this bait was deployed. 
There was also difficulty in distinguishing between possible 
consumption by rats and crumbling of this bait in some 


instances, thus no bait uptake estimates for X-Verminator 
are provided. in the results. 


Monitoring for rat activity 


A range of rodent activity monitoring devices were deployed 
at various times from week six of baiting, and included 
chew cards (35 x 80 mm plastic corflute cards containing 
5 grams of peanut butter), WaxTags (a waxy peanut butter 
lure which retains tooth marks; Pest Control Research Ltd. 
New Zealand) and Reconyx Hyperfire2 motion sensing 
cameras distributed in areas of boxthorn and tussock 
grass, the preferred habitat of rats. Snap traps (Aegis) were 
set 10-20 m apart in the areas where monitoring devices 
indicated ratactivity. Other devices used for both monitoring 
and killing were A24 CO, powered traps (GoodNature) and 
‘rat motels’ (700 x 700 x 150 mm, lidded marine ply box 
internally partitioned containing food, bedding, poison bait, 
wax tag, snap trap and two 70 mm entry holes) and baited 
stations. From late July to early December 2016, eight visits 
to the island of one week with two staff were undertaken. 
In 2017, three-day monitoring visits were undertaken every 
two months then reduced to every three months in 2018. 
A rodent detector dog trained for rats and mice visited the 
island on five occasions, beginning four months after baiting 
finished (i.e., November 2016). Two years of regular island- 
wide monitoring concluded the program in November 2018. 


40 Susan Robinson and Wayne Dick 


RESULTS 
Stations and bait consumption 


A total of 2,208 stations (tables 1 and 2) had 29,182 visits 
recorded between 26 April (Day 1) and 10 July 2016, with 
over 99% of the bait consumption occurring before 10 
May 2016 (Day 15), the period when only Talon X-Pro 
was used (table 3 & fig. 2). Bait take was highest at Day 
5 and decreased to zero (or wasn’t discernible) at Day 20 
(fig. 2). It was possible a small pulse of bait-take occurred 
around Day 43 but was difficult to measure due to being 
very small amounts. Fresh bait remained in stations until at 
least mid-July (Day 84). A low level of bait uptake record- 
ing errors occurred during data entry (typing errors, double 
entries). Obvious errors were corrected in the database and 
the remaining error (related to recording bait consumption) 
was estimated to be 4.4%. An estimated 200.6 kg + 8.7 kg 
(4.4 %) of Talon X-Pro was consumed by rats (table 3). The 
highest bait consumption occurred in coastal areas of African 
Boxthorn and Tussock Grass, with the mid-east coast of the 
main island showing pockets of very high consumption (> 
640 g, or 32 blocks, per 25 x 25 m grid square) (fig. 3). 
The first dead rat was seen on 28 April and a strong odour 
of dead rats was discernible by 10 May particularly on the 
west and north islets. 


Locating remaining rats 


Bait-take declined over time and appeared to be at zero 
by 21 May. Field staff noted, however, that in early June, 
small amounts of bait may have been consumed and in 
order to check for possible remaining rats, 381 chew-cards 
were deployed. These were placed 20-50 m apart and 
located where bait may have been consumed and in areas 
of preferred rat habitat including the vegetated perimeter 
of the island and features such as rocky outcrops between 
3 and 8 June. On 10 June, damage to 21 chew-cards 
indicated rats were still present. In response, the project 
adopted intensive monitoring with chew-cards, wax tags, 
snap traps, cage traps, Elliott traps, motion-sensing cameras, 
tracking tunnels and CO, powered A24 traps (table 4). 
Chew-cards, and to a lesser extent wax tags, were the most 
effective tools for locating rat activity. Multiple snap traps 
with a variety of food lures were set in the areas where 
activity was identified. A total of six rats (3 male, 3 female) 
were killed in snap traps: three in June, two in July and 
one in November (fig. 4). The last known positive rat 
sign was an adult female rat killed on 3 November 2016. 
None of the three female rats were pregnant or lactating. 
No sign of mice was found. 

The grid of baited stations remained in place until mid- 
July 2016 then was progressively removed over a three-week 
period beginning with the areas of pasture where bait 
consumption (a proxy for rat density) had been lowest. 
Over 30 baited stations were maintained at beaches, landing 
points and around buildings, in addition to those deployed 
where rat sign was located. Monitoring equipment remained 
in place from June 2016 to November 2018 (table 4), 


Number of bait blocks 


1500 
1000 
500 | 
0 [ope ae ee 
3 6 9 12 


15 18 22 
Day of baiting 


FIG. 2 — Number of 20 g bait blocks recorded consumed on 
each day from 28 April 2016 (Day 3) onwards. Initial baiting of 
stations occurred on Days 1 and 2. Two days were required to 
check all stations. 


= Parry’s Rock 


w Reef Islet 


North Islet 2 
North Islet 1 = “| 


FIG. 3 — Bait block (Talon X-Pro) consumption per 25 x 25m 
grid square for all the areas of Big Green Island. The highlighted 
6.25 ha square contained stations at higher density around the 


buildings. 


Black Rats eradicated from Big Green Island in Bass Strait, Tasmania. 41 


TABLE 1 — Names and areas (above high tide) of individual 
islands, numbers of bait stations installed and Talon X-Pro bait 


consumed. a 

Site Area ha Number of stations Bait consumed kg 

Main island 124.80 2128 187.8 

West Islet! 0.18 6 1.1 

North Islet 1 2.26 40 6.9 

North Islet 2 1.50 28 4.6: 

reef islet (no name) 0.06 2; 0.1 

Parry's Rock 0.11 2 0.1 

TOTAL 128.91 2208 200.6 


' Refer to Fig. 3 for locations of islets. 


TABLE 2 — Station deployment and visit details. 


Total Comment 
Total 25 x 25 m grid squares 2064 Main island and islets combined 
Additional stations over 6.25 ha 93 Contingency for House Mouse 
Total stations 2208 — Includes extra coastal stations 


Visits to stations (26 Apr-17 May 16) 18,722 Talon X-Pro bait only 
Visits to stations (18 May—10 July 16) 10,460 X-Verminator and Talon X-Pro 


TABLE 3 — Bait deployment and consumption. 


Measure Total Comment 


Total 20 g blocks consumed 10,028 Talon X-Pro only 


Total bait consumed (+ error) 200.6 (+ 8.7) kg Talon X-Pro only 


Average consumption /station —_0.1 kg (5 blocks) Averaged over 129 ha 


Average consumption/ha 1.6 kg Averaged over 129 ha 


Total bait deployed 400 kg Spoiled baits were removed 


TABLE 4 — Monitoring tools deployed from 3 June 2016 to the end of the project on 3 November 2018. 


Monitoring tool 3 Jun-27 Nov 16! 02Dec16 28May17 12Q0ct17 19 Apr18 22Aug18 1 Nov 18 
Chew-cards 667 383 396 169 187 - 187 187 
Snap traps ~ 473 : 3 4 4 3) 3 3 
Cage traps 6 

Elliott traps 5 

CO2 trap locations Dsus 5 ) 

Tracking tunnels 15 

Bait stations c. 40 1 38 37 39 ay) 38) 
Wax tags 89 18 

Camera locations : 16 

Rat motels 6 6 6 6 
Rodent detector dog days 3 2.5 


' Total installed over this period 


42 Susan Robinson and Wayne Dick 


Buildings 


11 June 
12 June | RR 


R 


R - rat killed 


FIG. 4 — Dates and locations of rats killed by snap traps on the 
main island of the Big Green Island group subsequent to the 
main baiting knockdown. 


which included a two-year monitoring period (Broome et 
al. 2011) with no further rat sign detected. 


Non-target impacts 


Baiting teams were highly vigilant for sick and dead rats 
with a total of 20 animals collected to reduce the possibility 
of secondary poisoning of non-target species. Five Pacific 
Gulls died from consuming poisoned rats as indicated by 
haemorrhaging seen externally on their carcasses. Trapping 
resulted in the deaths of three Brown Quail (Coturnix 
ypsilophora) in uncovered snap traps and a Cape Barren Goose 
hatchling that squeezed into a station containing a snap trap. 


Effort and cost 


Approximately 605 days of volunteer time supported the 
rat eradication work, with station deployment and baiting 
consuming the most time. Government agency staff 
contributed at least 408 days to the project. 

Purchases of project equipment and services totalled 
$114,000. Total salary costs were estimated at $120,000. 
In Australia, volunteer time is costed at $41.72 per hour 
(Australian Bureau of Statistics 2018) making the volunteer 
contribution $201,925. 


Biosecurity 


A Biosecurity Plan (Tasmania Parks & Wildlife Service 2016) 
has been drafted for the island. To minimise biosecurity issues 
during the eradication program and the monitoring phase, 
public visitation to the island was suspended until at least 
November 2016. To reduce the risk of reinvasion of the island 
by rodents, supplies and equipment travelling to the island 
are now checked as part of ongoing biosecurity requirements 
overseen by PWS staff. For on-island biosecurity, six ‘rat 
motels’ and 32 baited stations are maintained on the island 
(including adjacent islets) with checks aimed at 3—6-month 


intervals. 


DISCUSSION 


Tasmania is notable for having achieved the world’s largest 
Black Rat eradication: 12,800 ha Macquarie Island in 
2011 (Springer 2016). Interestingly, apart from this and 
the Big Green Island attempt, the only other island rodent 
eradications in Tasmania were for the tiny 1 ha Fisher Island 
in 1974 for Black Rat (Serventy 1977) and again in 2013 
for House Mouse and Black Rat (S. Robinson, unpublished 
data). Big Green Island was one of the 22 ‘uninhabited’ 
Tasmanian islands recorded with invasive rats and had a 
long history of rodent control and a previous attempt at 
eradication. For the eradication attempt described here, 
potential non-target issues from primary poisoning (i.c., 
native species and livestock) were minimised by choosing 
bait stations as the eradication method. The 50 m grid 
recommended by Broome ef a/. (2011) was increased in 
density to a 25 m grid as a contingency for the possible 
presence of mice, accepting that the recommended grid 
for baiting mice is 10 x 10 m (Harper et al. in press). The 
25 m bait station grid required a substantial labour force 
(mostly volunteers) to check stations over the 12-week baiting 
period and a data management system capable of tracking 
the distribution of bait over such an array. 

The field data management program Fulcrum was integral 
to the project. Most volunteers quickly mastered the use 
of iPads and Fulcrum for recording data, though more 
training would have improved data quality and reduced 
errors. There were a number of small issues with the data 
input design related to inexperience of structuring an ‘app’ 
for this type of work. The baiting ‘app’ was not suitable 
for recording the dynamic situation with monitoring 
tools being deployed across the island, and a second ‘app’ 
specifically for monitoring needed to be produced. In 
hindsight the monitoring ‘app’ should have been available 
at the beginning of fieldwork alongside the baiting ‘app’. 

Rodent eradication projects on islands generally do 
not undertake intensive verification monitoring until 
two rat breeding seasons (equating to two years) after 
the knockdown (Broome et al. 2011), as for example, 
Macquarie Island (Springer 2016). This allows time for 
any rodents to increase in number to a detectable level. 
The potential issue with this method is that if rodents 
have survived the eradication attempt, allowing two 


Black Rats eradicated from Big Green Island in Bass Strait, Tasmania. 43 


years of reproduction will likely mean the full eradication 
will need repeating and this additional cost may not 
be economically viable. The island-wide deployment of 
monitoring devices after the main knockdown period was 
not part of the original plan but was suggested by a rodent 
eradication expert (Department of Conservation, New 
Zealand) as a good way to check on how the operation 
was progressing. Other practitioners have used a similar 
idea and developed detailed rapid eradication assessment 
models (Samaniego-Herrera et al. 2013, Russell er al. 
2017) where monitoring begins soon after baiting and 
these are particularly suited to smaller islands. A batch of 
500 chew-cards was made on the island and these were 
available for deployment when field staff thought there 
could be some late bait consumption. 

Chew-cards were checked in early June and indicated 
rat activity. It was possible these remaining rats could have 
been tolerant to brodifacoum due to the population’s long 
history of exposure to rodenticides or were choosing not 
to consume bait or to enter bait stations and had thus 
avoided being poisoned at least at that stage. Bait was still 
available across the grid and in addition to this, in the case 
that rats were not entering stations or taking bait, managers 
decided to allocate staff to actively locate and capture rats, 
not knowing at the time if there was a high or a low rat 
population remaining. The appearance of a pulse of activity 
a few weeks after bait-take has declined to (near) zero is 
not unusual during a baiting operation (K. Springer pers. 
comm.). It may have been that remaining rats would have 
eventually consumed bait if they hadn't been trapped, but 
the team chose to act to ensure that other lethal methods 
were available in case the remaining rats were not susceptible 
to poisoning. Snap traps were firstly set inside stations, 
which was not successful, then outside of stations under 
debris and vegetation (to minimise potential bycatch). The 
main bait station grid was removed between late July and 
early August 2016 because it was thought remaining rats 
were avoiding stations, as seen in the lack of success with 
snap traps set inside stations. Six rats were caught in snap 
traps between June and November 2016, and no further 
sign was found during the next two years. The island was 
declared rat-free in November 2018. 

Notwithstanding it is possible all rats could have 
eventually been killed with poison and that the monitoring 
could have been delayed, possible explanations for rats being 
present after the main period of bait consumption include: 

Black Rat live for about one year in the wild (Strahan 
1983). Ideally an island would be bait-free for at least 
one year prior to an eradication so that rats exposed to 
bait during their lifetime (and survived) have died from 
other causes. The bait-free period prior to eradication for 
Big Green Island was planned to start in January 2015 
when all field-based stations were collected. It transpired 
in July 2015, however, that sheds and buildings were still 
being baited which reduced the island’s bait-free period 
to eight months. It was therefore possible that rats that 
had been exposed to bait, and developed a tolerance to it 
during this period, could still have been alive at the time 
of eradication and avoided being poisoned. 


The rat population’s long history of exposure to multiple 
poisons may have resulted in the survivorship of neophobic 
or bait-tolerant individuals over time. 

‘Bitrex’, a bittering agent, was present in the bait Zalon 
X-Pro and rats may have been detecting it or repelled by 
it. Note, however, that X-Verminator was also present in 
stations and does not contain ‘Bitrex’ so rats may eventually 
have taken baits if they hadn’t been trapped first. 

Interestingly, four of the six remaining rats were trapped 
within 100 m of the buildings. The risks and implications 
related to long-term rodenticide use at islands selected 
for eradication need to be carefully considered during 
the planning phase. At sites where rodenticides have 
been used for many years, allowing two years for the 
site to be free of rodenticide would reduce the chance 
of bait-tolerant or neophobic individuals being present. 
This additional time may need to be included in future 
project planning. 


Rat density and bait consumption 


Using bait consumption as an index of rat density showed 
that native Tussock Grass and African Boxthorn were the 
most favoured habitats for rats. The highest rat density 
occurred on the mid-east coast in a narrow strip of African 
Boxthorn. The nearby islets (West, North Islets 1 and 2) 
also had high bait consumption (8-15 blocks/grid square) 
inferring high rat density. The small (30 x 20 m and 45 
x 15 m), sparsely vegetated, rocky islets to the north also 
had rats present. These two outcrops join up at low tides. 
At the lowest tides, a shallow channel 100 m wide, exists 
between North Islet 2 and the unnamed ‘reef islet’, but is 
well within arats’ swimming ability, with studies concluding 
Black Rats can swim up to 1 km distance in favourable 
conditions (Spennemann & Rapp 1989), though 500-m is 


considered more realistic. 
Project partnerships 


‘The Big Green Island rat eradication project was supported 
by groups of up to 12 volunteers at a time. Volunteers 
assisted with a variety of tasks throughout the eradication 
process: deploying stations across the island; data collection; 
checking and rebaiting stations; removing stations; 
constructing, deploying and checking hundreds of chew- 
cards. Significantly, the grid of 2,208 bait stations would 
not have been an economical option for the project's budget 
if salaried staff were used. Pre-eradication surveys for birds 
and invertebrates were conducted by volunteers experienced 
in these fields. 

More and more conservation work is being supported 
through alternative funding sources and thus projects 
like these must include strong partnerships between 


- government, industry and non-government organisations. 


Both the volunteer and philanthropic contributions to this 
rat eradication project were critical to its success. 


44 Susan Robinson and Wayne Dick 


Maintaining a rodent-free island 


Whilst having an island inhabited and with a livestock 
grazing lease presents challenges for maintaining biosecurity, 
the presence of the island’s leaseholder likely reduces the 
numbers of opportunistic visitors and campers. Biosecurity 
guidelines for island visitors are provided on the PWS 
website. The local PWS staff have biosecurity processes in 
place to check stock-feed going to Big Green Island and have 
the responsibility of maintaining the island’s rodent bait 
stations. The time and cost required for biosecurity-related 
tasks are significantly less than that expended for annual, 
island-wide and ongoing rodent baiting for control purposes. 
It is important to note that now the island is free of Black 
Rats, it is vulnerable to invasion by other species of rodents 
such as Brown Rats and House Mouse (but also reinvasion 
by Black Rats) all of which occur on Flinders Island, 3 km 
distance at the narrowest crossing. Brown Rats can swim 1 km 
(Russell et al, 2008) but have also been recorded swimming 
at least 2.5 km (K. Broome pers. comm.). 


Post-eradication wildlife monitoring 


Post-eradication monitoring includes the long-term 
Short-tailed Shearwater monitoring by the Tasmanian 
Governments Marine Conservation Program. Baseline 
information on invertebrates, shore birds and other birdlife 
were collected during the eradication project, and similar 
surveys will be repeated in the future to examine changes 


and recovery in native species. 


CONCLUSIONS 


Big Green Island has a long history of poison baiting which 
brought additional considerations into planning for a rat 
eradication. The project required detailed planning to operate 
over 2,200 bait stations, a task that was made possible by 
a mobile phone-linked data collection program and a large 
group of volunteers. The decision to monitor for rodent 
activity soon after the main bait consumption period was 
an important factor in the success of the project because it 
allowed surviving rats to be located and dispatched before 
breeding occurred. Effective and ongoing biosecurity for 
the island is critical for protecting the investment of this rat 
eradication program, with the island potentially vulnerable to 
colonisation from any of the three introduced rodent species 
that occur on nearby Flinders Island. Surveys of shorebirds 
and small burrowing petrels, as well as invertebrate and 
reptile fauna, will hopefully soon show the benefits of the 
work and commitment undertaken to remove Black Rats 
from Big Green Island. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 


The authors thank all the dedicated volunteers; Tasmania 
Parks and Wildlife staff Peter Mooney, Cindy Pitchford, 
Mark Donald, Luke Gadd, Noel Carmichael, Mark Monks, 
Nick Whiteley and Stan Matuszek; the Tasmania Parks and 
Wildlife support staff; Biosecurity Tasmania staff and Phil 
Wyatt for his GIS support. The authors also thank Pete 
McClelland for expert advice; the Pennicott Foundation; 
the Estate of G.J. Kole; the island’s lessee Dennis Cooper; 
Peter Vertigan, Greg Hocking and Birdlife Tasmania. Keith 
Springer and Keith Broome are thanked for their valuable 
additions to the manuscript. 


REFERENCES 


Australian Bureau of Statistics 2018: Assigning value to your 
volunteer labour, https://www.fundingcentre.com.au/ 
help/valuing-volunteer-labour 

Backhouse, J. 1843: A narrative of a visit to the Australian colonies. 
Hamilton, Adams and Co., London: 560 pp. 

Banks, P.B. & Hughes, N.K. 2012: A review of the evidence for 
potential impacts of black rats (Rattus rattus) on wildlife 
and humans in Australia. Wildlife Research 39: 78-88. 

Broome, K.G., Brown, D., Cox, A., Cromarty, P., McClelland, 
P., Golding, C., Griffiths, R. & Bell, P. 2011: Current 
Agreed Best Practice for Rat Eradication — poison bait in 
bait stations (Version 1.3). New Zealand Department of 
Conservation internal document DOCDM-839096. 
Department of Conservation, Wellington, New 
Zealand: 25 pp. 

Brothers, N.B., Pemberton, D., Pryor, H. & Haley, V. 2001: 
Tasmanias Offshore Islands: Seabirds and Other Natural 
Features. Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart, 
Tasmania: 643 pp. 

Commonwealth of Australia 2009: Threat Abatement Plan to 
reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity 
on Australian offshore islands of less than 100 000 
ha. Unpublished Report of the Department of the 
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra: 
24 pp. 

Global Invasive Species Database 2019: 100 of the World’ Worst 
Invasive Alien Species, www.iucngisd.org/gisd/100_ 
worst.php (accessed 18 August 2019). 

Harper, G.A., Pahor, S. & Birch, D. (én press) The Lord Howe 
Island rodent eradication: lessons from the ground- 
baiting operation. 29th Vertebrate Pest Management 
Conference. University of California (Davis), USA. 

Harris, $., Buchannan, A. & Connolly, A. 2001: One Hundred 
Islands: The Flora of the Outer Furneaux. Tasmanian 
Department of Primary Industries, Water and 
Environment, Hobart: 361 pp. 

Norman, EI. 1970: Food preferences of an insular population of 
Rattus rattus. Journal of Zoology, London 162: 493-503. 

Robinson, S. & Dick, W. 2015: Big Green Island Black Rat 
Eradication Feasibility Report. Unpublished Report for 
Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service. Hobart: 22 pp. 

Robinson, S. & Dick, W. 2016: Big Green Island Black Rat 
Eradication Operational Pian. Unpublished Report for 
Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service. Hobart: 23 pp. 

Russell, J.C., Binnie, H.R., Oh, J., Anderson, D.P. & Samaniego- 
Herrera, A. 2017: Optimizing confirmation of invasive 
species eradication with rapid eradication assessment. 
Journal of Applied Ecology 54: 160-169. 


Black Rats eradicated from Big Green Island in Bass Strait, Tasmania. 45 


Russell, J.C., Towns, D.R. & Clout, M.N. 2008: Review of Rat 
Invasion Biology. Implications for island biosecurity. 
Science for Conservation No. 286. Unpublished Report 
of the Department of Conservation, Wellington, New 
Zealand: 54 pp. 

Samaniego-Herrera, A., Anderson, D.P., Parkes, J.P. & Aguirre- 
Munoz, A. 2013: Rapid assessment of rat eradication 
after aerial baiting. Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 1415- 
1421. 

Serventy, D.L. 1977: Seabird Islands: Fisher Island, Tasmania. 
Corella 1(3): 60-62. 

Spennemann, D.H.R., Rapp, G. & Early, D.S. 1989: Can 
rats colonise oceanic islands unaided? An assessment 
and review of the swimming capabilities of the genus 
Rattus (Rodentia: Muridae) with particular reference to 
tropical waters. Zoologische Abhandlungen des Museums 
fiir Tierkunde Dresden, 45(1): 481-491. 


Springer, K. 2016: Methodology and challenges of a complex 
multi-species eradication in the sub-Antarctic and 
immediate effects of invasive species removal. New 
Zealand Journal of Ecology 40(2): 273-278. 

Strahan, R. (ed) 1983: Complete Book of Australian Mammals. The 
Australian Museum, Sydney: 530 pp. 

Tasmania Parks & Wildlife Service 2016: Big Green Island 
Biosecurity Management Plan 2016. Draft Report for 
Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart: 21 pp. 

Towns, D.R., Atkinson, ILA.E. & Daugherty, C.H. 2006: Have 

* the harmful effects of introduced rats on islands been 
exaggerated? Biological Invasions 8: 863-891. 

Van Dyck, S.M. & Strahan, R. (eds.) 2008: The Mammals of 

Australia. New Holland Publishers, Sydney: 887 pp. 


(accepted 30 September 2020) 


| 
| 
| 


Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 154, 2020 : 47 


UNVIABLE FERAL CAT POPULATION RESULTS IN ERADICATION 
SUCCESS ON WEDGE ISLAND, TASMANIA 


by Susan Robinson and Luke Gadd 
(with one text-figure and one table) 


Robinson, S. & Gadd, L. 2020 (9:xii): Unviable feral cat population results in eradication success on Wedge Island, Tasmania. Papers and 
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 154: 47-50. ISSN: 0080-4703. Biosecurity Tasmania, 13 St Johns Avenue, New Town, 
Tasmania 7008, Australia (SR*); Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service, Mt Field National Park, 66 Lake Dobson Road, National 
Park, Tasmania 7140, Australia (LG). *Author for correspondence. Email: sue.robinson@dpipwe.tas.gov.au 


Wedge Island in southeast Tasmania is 43 ha in size and is habitat for Little Penguin (Eudyptula minor) and Short-tailed Shearwater (Ardenna 
tenuirostris) populations. The island was subject to a feral Cat (Felis catus) eradication attempt in 2003 when 13 cats were captured with the 
assistance of trained detection dogs. It was known at least one cat remained. No further cats were captured during two subsequent visits in 
2003 and 2004 and a single dead cat was found in 2012. It appeared the cat population never recovered from the initial knockdown and 
this ultimately resulted in eradication success. Methods used and details of cats caught are provided and the program is discussed in terms 


of criteria required for a successful eradication. 


Key Words: island eradication, feral Cat, Felis catus, eradication criteria, Tasmania. 


INTRODUCTION 


Like other islands of the world, Tasmania’s offshore 
islands have been subjected to deliberate and inadvertent 
introductions of non-native vertebrates, typically rats (Rattus 
rattus or R. norvegicus), House Mouse (Mus musculus), 
European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and Cat (Felis catus). 
Cats have been taken to islands by residents as companion 
animals and to control pest rodents that have established after 
arriving in cargo; rabbits have historically been introduced 
to islands as a food source for fishers, residents and mariners. 
Around 10% of Tasmania’s 600 vegetated islands and 
islets are recorded as having vertebrate pests and at least 20 
islands have had cats introduced. Feral cats were eradicated 
from two islands in the Furneaux Group (Little Green 
and Great Dog) in the 1980s (Campbell er al. 2011), 
from subantarctic Macquarie Island in 2000 (Robinson & 
Copson 2014) and from Tasman Island in 2010 (Robinson 
et al, 2015). After the Macquarie Island cat eradication 
monitoring period concluded in 2002, staff, traps and cat 
detection dogs became available for use on further projects. 
The removal of feral cats from Wedge Island, southeast 
Tasmania, was attempted in 2003 with support from the 
Marine Conservation Program, Department of Primary 
Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (Tasmania). 
European Rabbit and Sheep (Ovis aries) were introduced 
to Wedge Island in 1930 by fishers (N. Brothers quoted 
in Beh 1995). Rabbits outcompeted the sheep for food, so 
the sheep were removed in 1939. Cats were first recorded 
on the island in 1939 and were probably introduced for 
rabbit control. It appears these cats died out some years 
later (Beh 1995). Sheep were then returned to the island at 
a subsequent unknown date prior to 1970. Myxoma virus 
was released on Wedge Island through the 1970s, and in 
1976 cats were re-introduced (apparently one pregnant 
female) to help control the rabbits that were again impacting 
vegetation and sheep grazing (Beh 1995). The rabbits died 


out around 1978 and the sheep were removed in 1986 but 
cats remained (Beh 1995). No rodents or other introduced 
mammals are present on the island, leaving seabirds as the 
main food source for cats. 


STUDY SITE 


Wedge Island (43°08'S, 147°40'E), located on the western 
side of the Tasman Peninsula, was reserved as a Conservation 
Area in 2004 and is 800 m in distance from the closest point 
to mainland Tasmania. Orientated north-south, Wedge 
Island is approximately 1.3 by 0.6 km with an area of 43 
ha. The island has steep dolerite cliffs on the western side 
tapering to a rocky shoreline in the east. The island rises to 
96 m. Tussock Grass (Poa poiformis) and Saggs (Lomandra 
longifolia) are the dominant vegetation with patches of 
succulents (Carpobrotus rossii), Kangaroo Apple (Solanum 
laciniatum) and a small remnant eucalypt (Eucalyptus 
viminalis) and she-oak (Casurina sp.) woodland (Brothers 
et al. 2001). 

The island has a significant seabird fauna, including 
12,000 pairs of Short-tailed Shearwaters (Ardenna 
tenuirostris) and 1000 pairs of Little Penguin (Eudyprula 
minor) (Brothers et al. 2001, Vertigan 2010). Other 
vertebrates include the Tasmanian Native Hen (Gallinula 
mortierri) and two species of skink (Niveoscincus metallicus 
and WN. ocellatus). Fairy Prions (Pachyptila turtur) are believed 
to have been breeding on the island up to the 1970s (N. 
Brothers quoted in Beh 1995). Fur seals (Arctocephalus 
pusillus and A. forsteri) are present on the coastal rock 
platform. 


. METHODS 


Field teams of two people camped on the island three times 
during 2003 and 2004. Methods available to capture cats 


48 Susan Robinson and Luke Gadd 


were wire mesh drop-door cage traps (600 x 300 x 300 
mm) (Mascot Wireworks, Preston, Victoria), rubber-jawed 
leg-hold traps (Victor, no. 3: Woodstream Corp. Lititz, PA, 
USA) and shooting with a .22 calibre rifle under spotlight 
or when located by trained cat detection dogs. 

Brief visits to the island to check for cat signs (footprints 
in sand or scats, etc.) were made opportunistically from 
2007 to 2010. Four remote sensing cameras (Scoutguard 
SG-550) were installed on the island for four weeks during 
September and October 2008 and nine Reconyx Hyperfire 
remote sensing cameras from January to April 2012 and 
again from May to July 2012. Whilst land managers were 
generally confident no cats remained from 2012 onwards, 
the availability of a cat detection dog facilitated an additional 
final check for cat sign in 2019. 


RESULTS 


The effort to eradicate and monitor the cat population on 
Wedge Island is summarised in table 1. A primary knockdown 
of 14 days in 2003 was followed by 12 days of further effort 
but this was insufficient to capture the last cat/s. The project 
was unable to gain additional investment support for several 
years. In 2003, 13 cats were captured and at least one cat 
was known to remain giving a population of at least 14 
individuals. At least one cat was known to be present until 
December 2010. This cat likely died in late 2011 and its 
body was found in May 2012. 

Thirteen cats were captured in 2003: seven adult males 
(mean 4.1 + SD 0.3 kg, n=7), five adult females (mean 
2.9 + SD 0.6 kg, n=4) and one juvenile female in poor 


condition (1.1 kg). Of these cats, 12 were white with 
patches of tabby, tortoise-shell or black, and a single 
animal had a solid tabby pelage. Three of the males had 
very worn teeth and one had a tattooed ear from the Beh 
(1995) study. The cat found dead in 2012 was a tabby. 

For the first island visit (21 July to 4 Aug 2003) cage 
traps and leg-hold traps were set for cats. No cats were 
caught in either trap type. All cats captured over this 14- 
day period were located in seabird burrows as indicated 
by two detection dogs (fig. 1). Burrows were dug open by 
hand and cats humanely euthanised with a .22 calibre rifle. 
A second visit (27 Aug to 4 Sep 2003) was unsuccessful 
in capturing cats. Cat prints in sand and a freshly killed 
Little Penguin were recorded. During a four-day field trip 
in winter 2004, cat sign was again found (prints, scent and 
scats) but no capture resulted. 

Stomach contents from cats euthanised in 2003 mostly 
contained remains of Little Penguins, including body parts 
of small chicks and adults. In July 2003, Little Penguins were 
incubating eggs or recently hatched young. Fish was present 
in cat diet and could have been from penguin stomachs 
or scavenged from the shoreline. Invertebrates were also 
present (beetles and caterpillars, species not identified). 

With the total number of cats being at least 14 individuals 
in 2003, the density for Wedge Island was around 0.33 
cats per ha. From the detailed field notes of Nigel Brothers 
in 1984 (State Library of Tasmania Archives), 15 to 17 
individual cats could be identified for Wedge Island, 12 of 
which were trapped and tagged over 12 days in July and 
August 1984 as part of an unpublished energetics study. 
The ecological study by Beh in 1995 estimated “not more 
than a total of 15 individuals (cats) on the island”. 


TABLE 1 — Visits to Wedge Island: eradication effort and cat sign recorded from 2003 to 2019. 


Trip date Trip StafF_ Dog Trap nights Spotlight Camera — Cats Comments 
days days days Cage Leg-hold hours nights 

21 Jul 03 14 14 28 Uyfs) 210 30 - 13 dead At least 1 cat (tabby) remaining 

27 Aug 03 9 9 18 45 le, 24 - - Cat scent detected by dogs; cat prints and 
scats 

29 Jun 04 4 4 8 12 60 ~ 12 = = Cat scent detected by dogs; cat prints and 
scats 

7 Sep 07 0.25 0.25 - = = ~ - - Cat prints 

5 Sep 08 1 0.5 - = = ~ 160 - Cat prints and scats; no cats recorded on 
cameras 

23 Aug 10 O25) Ws) - = = - - - Cat prints 

17 Dec 10 =20 - = - - - - llive Tabby. Observation by University of 
‘Tasmania 

23 Jan 12 1 3 1 - - = = - 2 old scats. No fresh scent located by dog 

11 Apr 12 1 1 - - - _ 711 - No cats recorded on cameras 

31 May 12 1 7 1 ~ - = - 1 dead Tabby, desiccated; no fresh scent located 

. by dog 
13 Jul 12 1 1 - - - = 344 - No cats recorded on cameras 


27 Sep 19 1 1 1 = = = 


- - No sign of cats found 


Unviable feral cat population results in eradication success on Wedge Island, Tasmania 49 


[>\  Short-tailed 
shearwater 
colony 


Little penguin 
colony 


0 50100 200 300 0 
Metres 


FIG. 1 — Map of Wedge Island, southeast Tasmania, showing 
locations of cats caught in 2003 (dots) and found dead in 2012 
(triangle); seabird distribution is from Beh (1995) and Vertigan 
(2010). 


DISCUSSION 


In 2003, it was likely the Wedge Island cat population was 
reduced to either one cat or to a low number of cats of the 
same sex. This outcome left the cat population unviable and 
it died out in 2011. In 2012, with the establishment of the 
‘Invasive Species Branch’ as part of Biosecurity Tasmania, 
it was decided to finalise the project through monitoring 
and locating any remaining cats. Camera monitoring and 
a thorough search of the island with a team of seven people 
and a cat detection dog found one dead cat that had likely 
died several months earlier. No other evidence or fresh cat 
sign has been found since. 

The most effective method of locating cats on Wedge 
Island was with cat detection dogs indicating which 
seabird burrows were occupied by a cat. Interestingly, no 
cats entered cage or leg-hold traps. Dissected cats showed 
full stomachs of mostly Little Penguin remains, suggesting 
food was plentiful in July and why food lures in traps were 
not effective. Leg-hold traps were set outside the seabird 
colonies to avoid catching Little Penguins. It appeared 
that cats were mostly denning and feeding within the 
seabird colonies thus may have not encountered the leg- 
hold traps. It is possible the remaining cat/s retreated to 
the inaccessible southwest cliffs to avoid the high level of 


human and dog activity during field trips and thus evaded 
capture. In hindsight, poison baiting could have helped 
target remaining cats in the autumn when seabirds are 
absent and food availability low. 

For island-based vertebrate pest eradication attempts to 
be successful, it is accepted that several criteria need to be 
met (Bomford & O’Brien 1995, Clout & Veitch 2002). 
These criteria are: 

Animals must be killed faster than they reproduce; 
All animals can be put at risk by the methods used; 
Immigration is zero; 

Methods are socially acceptable; 

The project has sufficient institutional support and 
funding. 

The Wedge Island cat eradication attempt in 2003-04 
was undertaken on a very small budget. After an effective 
primary knockdown, the follow-up effort and methods 
were insufficient, or not appropriate, to catch the last 
individuals (i.e., Criterion 2 was not met). No further 
funding was available to support the project (i-e., Criterion 
5 was not met) after 2004. Cat activity on the island was 
sporadically monitored over the ensuing eight years, often 
in addition to boat trips already occurring in the area. 
Despite the criteria for eradication apparently not being 
met, the eradication was eventually successful because the 
remnant cat population was not reproductively viable, 
i.e, Criterion 1 had actually been met but this was not 
known at the time. 

Another Tasmanian island where an eradication of cats 
was attempted on a limited budget was Tasman Island, 29 
km to the southeast of Wedge Island. Seven visits between 
1977 and 1982 utilised shooting and 1080 baits to remove 
cats. Population reduction was being achieved and further 
visits planned (Brothers 1982). The final effort to remove the 
cats, believed to be very low in number (e.g., three or less) 
did not occur (N. Brothers pers. comm.), and highlights the 
importance of securing sufficient resources for eradication 
work. The remnant cat population unfortunately recovered 
rather than dying out but was finally eradicated in 2010 
(Robinson et al. 2015). 

The cats on Wedge Island fed primarily on seabirds 
because most other common prey species were not present 
(e.g. rats, House Mice or European Rabbits). In 1984, 
Brothers (1984) noted 13 adult Little Penguins killed 
and/or consumed by cats over 12 field days during July 
and August. Examination of cat scats between May and 
September 1995 (Beh 1995) had Short-tailed Shearwater 
as the most prevalent dietary item in May (prior to their 
northward migration) and Little Penguin increasing with 
a peak in July. Native Hen remnants were also present in 
smaller proportions throughout Beh’s 1995 study period. 
Eggshell fragments in scats increased in July and were 
likely from the eggs of Native Hens or Little Penguins. 
Beh (1995) reports caterpillars (species not recorded) 
increasing in prevalence in cat diet from July to September. 
Little Penguins and Native Hens, with the addition of 
caterpillars, supported cats through the low-food months 
when Short-tailed Shearwaters were absent. Some of the 
adult cats captured in 2003 showed extreme wearing 


50 Susan Robinson and Luke Gadd 


of teeth, suggesting items like intertidal limpets (Class 
Gastropoda) or mussels (Class Bivalvia) may have been 
prised from rocks and consumed. 

The tabby coat colour of cats was not common on 
Wedge Island in 2003, with only two of 14 recorded with 
this pelage. It is feasible the tabby coloured cat observed 
in 2003, 2004 and 2010, and found dead in 2012, was 
in fact the same animal. This would give a minimum age 
of nine years at its death. From an ear-tattooed cat found 
in 2003, marked in the Beh (1995) study, it was known 
that cats on Wedge Island could live at least eight years. 
Interestingly, the cat coat colours recorded by Brothers 
in 1984 were mostly tabby (9 of 12 trapped) with others 
being tabby with a white front (2), white with black 
patches (1) or all black (1). Beh (1995) did not describe 
coat colours but provided a black and white image of a 
tabby or tortoiseshell cat with white legs and underparts. 


CONCLUSION 


Leaving individuals remaining on an island is not a 
recommended or desired outcome, but when island-based 
pest eradication work is undertaken on a very low budget, 
there can be higher risks to achieving success. Detecting 
survivors can be labour-intensive and costly, and projects 
may be left without sufficient funds. Fortunately for Wedge 
Island and its seabirds, the eradication of cats was eventually 
successful despite the presence of survivors. The primary 
knockdown left the remnant cat population, which could 
have been a single animal, so low that reproduction was 
impacted. This resulted in an unviable population that 
ultimately died out. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 


The authors thank the Marine Conservation Program staff 
(DPIPWE); Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service staff; 
S. Brookes, J. Cleeland, R. Gaffney, M. Holdsworth, M. 


Johnston, B. Lazenby, M. Pauza, P. Vertigan and P. Marmion 
for their assistance. The authors are also grateful to T: Priestley 
for assistance with the figure and N. Brothers for providing 
additional information. 


REFERENCES 


Beh, J.C.L. 1995: The winter ecology of the feral cat, Felis catus 
(Linnaeus 1758), at Wedge Island, Tasmania. Unpublished 
BSc Honours thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart. 

Bomford, M. & O’Brien, P. 1995: Eradication or control for 
vertebrate pests? Wildlife Society Bulletin 23: 249-255. 

Brothers, N. 1982: Feral cat control on Tasman Island. Australian 
Ranger Bulletin 2: 9. 

Brothers, N. 1984: Original field notebook 24/8/84 Wedge Island. 
NS2366/1/67 State Library of Tasmania Archives, Hobart. 

Brothers, N., Pemberton, D., Pryor, H. & Halley, V. 2001: 
Tasmania’s Offshore Islands: Seabirds and other Natural 
Features. Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart, 
Tasmania: 643 pp. 

Campbell, K. J., Harper, G., Algar, D., Hanson, C.C., Keitt, B. 
S. & Robinson, S. 2011: Review of feral cat eradications 
on islands. Jz Veitch, C.R., Clout, M.N. & Towns, D.R. 
(eds.): Island Invasives: Eradication and Management. Gland, 
Switzerland. Proceedings of the International Conference 
on Island Invasives, IUCN: 37-46. 

Clout, M.N. & Veitch, C.R. 2002: Turning the tide on biological 
invasion: the potential for eradicating invasive species. 
In Clout, M.N. & Veitch, C.R. (eds.): Turning the Tide: 
The Eradication of Invasive Species. Gland, Switzerland 
and Cambridge, UK. Proceedings of the International 
Conference on Island Invasives, IUCN: 1-3. 

Robinson, S.A. & Copson, G.F. 2014: Eradication of cats (Felis 
catus) from subantarctic Macquarie Island. Ecological 
Management & Restoration 15(1): 34-40. 

Robinson, S., Gadd, L., Johnston, M. & Pauza, M. 2015: Long- 
term protection of important seabird breeding colonies 
on Tasman Island through eradication of cats. Journal of 
Ecology New Zealand 39(2): 316-322. 

Vertigan, C. 2010: The life-history of short-tailed shearwaters 
(Puffinus tenuirostris) in response to spatio-temporal 
environmental variation. Unpublished PhD thesis, 
University of Tasmania, Hobart. 


(accepted 5 October 2020) 


pape? and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 154, 2020 51 


COLLECTING HISTORY AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE POTENTIALLY INVASIVE 
DISA BRACTEATA (SOUTH AFRICAN ORCHID) IN TASMANIA 


by Mark Wapstra, Matthew L. Baker and Grant D. Daniels 
(with two text-figures, five plates and one table) 


wapstra, M., Baker, M.L. & Daniels, G.D. 2020 (9:xii): Collecting history and distribution of the potentially invasive Disa bracteata (South 
African orchid) in Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 154: 51-60. ISSN: 0080-4703. Environmental 
Consulting Options Tasmania, Lenah Valley, Tasmania 7008, Australia (MW*); Tasmanian Herbarium, Tasmanian Museum and 
Art Gallery, Sandy Bay, Tasmania 7005, Australia (MLB); North Barker Ecosystem Services, Hobart, Tasmania 7000, Australia 
(GDD). *Author for correspondence. Email: mark@ecotas.com.au 


pe collecting history of Disa bracteata Sw. (South African orchid) in Tasmania (Australia), the state’s only naturalised member of the 
oschidaceae family, is presented. Details of its distribution in Tasmania, since it was first discovered in 2005, are included and discussed 
with information on habitat, abundance and management. The species is primarily distributed across the north coast (Smithton to Mus- 
s¢Jroe) with an outlier in Huonville in the state's south. Most sites are from verges along public roads and highways, but the species has also 
cen detected on several private properties and other less disturbed habitats. Many sites with the species have been actively managed with 
the objective of eradication, although some sites are now well-established so eradication will require concerted effort. It is recommended 
{pat the species be added to the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 as a declared species with the primary objective of eradication. 


Key Words: Disa bracteata, Orchidaceae, distribution, naturalised, weed, invasive. 


INTRODUCTION 


‘fhe Orchidaceae family is extremely widespread and diverse, 
with an almost cosmopolitan distribution, and its species can 
pe found growing in a wide range of habitats except for the 
mostarid. Itis one of the largest plant families, with estimates 
suggesting it contains up to 30,000 species (Mabberley 2008, 
Chen et al. 2009). Being such a large group of plants, it 
js surprising that its members are relatively uncommon as 
paturalised species (e.g. Ackerman 2007). For example, of 
the nearly 1,400 species that are recorded in China, only 
one is considered to be naturalised (Chen et al. 2009); and 
of New Zealand’s ca. 117 species, only three are considered 
0 be naturalised (Gardner & de Lange 1996, Howell & 
Sawyer 2006, Breitwieser eta/. 2018). A similar pattern occurs 
in Australia, where a small number of species (Arundina 
graminifolia (D.Don) Hochr., Disa bracteata, Epidendrum 
sp., Eulophia graminea Lindl., Serapias neglecta De Not., 
Vanilla planifolia Jacks. ex Andrews) are reported to have 
become naturalised, compared to some 1,300 native species 
(Jones 2006, Clements & Jones 2008, Conran et al. 2011). 
Jn most cases, these are localised occurrences of species that 
have escaped cultivation (Jones 2006). The subject of this 
paper, D. bracteata, is widely naturalised in parts of southern 
Australia and is far more capable of self-establishment and 
long-distance dispersal than any other introduced orchid. 

The genus Disa Bergius contains over 160 species and 
is naturally distributed in sub-Saharan Africa, the Arabian 
Peninsula, Madagascar and the Mascarene Islands (Leistner 
2000, Goldblatt & Manning 2000, Mabberley 2008). The 
highest diversity for the genus occurs in southern Africa, 
with 131 species (Leistner 2000). 

Disa bracteata (plate 1, plate 2) is endemic to South 
Africa where it is widespread and common throughout the 
highly diverse fynbos that extends across the Western Cape 


and Eastern Cape provinces (Linder 1981). In its natural 
range it grows in undisturbed and disturbed habitats but 
is most frequent and abundant in areas of disturbance 
such as neglected pasture, roadsides and wasteland where 
it is considered a pioneer species (Linder 1981). It has 
been recorded in a wide range of habitats, including those 
with light and heavy soils, from sea level to 1,500 ma.s.l., 
grows in full sun or shade and tolerates a wide range of 
rainfall regimes (Linder 1981). The species is a deciduous 
perennial geophyte that grows up to 40 cm tall. Each plant 
produces numerous leaves and a single, stout, cylindrical 
flowering spike. It dies back in summer and overwinters as 
a pair of fleshy tubers. The species flowers from late spring 
through summer. The self-pollinating flowers produce 
prodigious quantities of minute seed (Jones 2006) that are 
readily spread over long distances primarily via wind, but 
also through other vectors such as contaminated soil on 
vehicles. The tubers produce numerous fleshy roots that 
make uprooting entire plants by hand almost impossible 
in all but the sandiest of soils (M. Wapstra pers. obs.). 
With its broad tolerance to a wide range of habitats, 
prolific seed production and its success as a pioneer species, 
it was perhaps not surprising that D. bracteata became 
widely naturalised in Australia (fig. 1), one of many plant 
species from South Africa to have successfully done so 
(e.g. Scott & Delfosse 1992, Scott & Panetta 1993). Jones 
(2006) noted that its introduction to Australia remains a 
mystery, with anecdotal statements suggesting that it arrived 
in Australia on ships from South Africa in the eighteenth 


"century. Several species, and horticulturally derived hybrids 


of Disa, are cultivated for their ornamental appeal (Synge 
1977). However, D. -bracteata is purported to not be widely 
used in horticulture. It was first detected in Australia in 1944 
from the rural district of Youngs Siding, near the port city 
of Albany, in Western Australia. At the time it was thought 


52 Mark Wapstra, Matthew L. Baker and Grant D. Daniels 


PLATE 1 — Disa bracteata (A) in situ at Latrobe site and (B) excavated. (Image: P. Tonelli) 


e ; + Newcastles 
& thy es 8 SYDNEY" 
Hee Adelaid 
; : ; £.. Canberra 
F Seed 
ry 4 
os 
e ® 
5 ° 5 : e 
8 ve ® 
5 Geo ® 
2 a Hobag* 


FIG. 1 — Distribution of Disa bracteata in Australia (source: Atlas of Living Australia, 8 August 2020). 


Collecting history and distribution of the potentially invasive Disa bracteata (South African orchid) in Tasmania 53 


PLATE 2 — (A) Clump of Disa bracteata in situ on Badgers Head Road, (B) close-up i 
; -up image of whole plant , and (C) hand- 
plant showing lack of tubers and roots, which have remained embedded in the ground. (Images: M. Wass) se ga hes 


sf a 2 =| 
ah PN 
as 5 é 12 
oie sd 
zi 10 ' 7 Go a 
5 Se 7 1c 
A Pale 
oi 
4 
nS 


- approx. 100 km 
_ er NOS NEN PEST SISTENT EESTI 


FIG. 2 — Distribution of Disa bracteata in Tasmania (numbers cross-reference to table 1). 


54 Mark Wapstra, Matthew L. Baker and Grant D. Daniels 


to be a newly recorded native species and was described 
as Monadenia australiense Rupp (Rupp 1947). Since its 
discovery, it has become widely naturalised in southwestern 
Western Australia between Cervantes and Esperance. In 
South Australia, where it was first discovered in 1988, it 
is most common in and around the Adelaide Hills area, 
through to the Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island, 
and around Mt Gambier. In Victoria, the species was first 
formally recorded in 1994 and is now widespread across 
southwestern Victoria and eastern parts of Gippsland. The 
only other region of Australia where it occurs is in Tasmania, 
where it was first detected in 2005 from a roadside near 
Bridport in the state’s northeast. In Australia, D. bracteata 
is commonly referred to as the ‘South African orchid’ or 
‘African weed-orchid’. 

In Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria 
D. bracteata is regarded as a significant environmental 
weed with a propensity to spread and invade bushland 
(Richardson et a/. 2016), although there is little empirical 
evidence that shows it has a serious negative ecological 
impact. In Tasmania, the species is still in the early stages 
of establishment but with the recent discovery of new 
populations, the purpose of this paper is to document 
its current extent of occurrence, identify areas potentially 
at risk of invasion and describe how weed management 
legislation may aid in eradication efforts. 


METHOD 
Database and collection review 
Several sources of records of native plants were interrogated 


and reviewed to produceacomplete list ofall known locations 
of D. bracteata in Tasmania. These wereas follows: collections 


PLATE 3 — Examples of excavated plants showing tubers. 
(A) Badger Head Road, October 2015; (B) Bass Highway, March 


2016). (Images: M. Wapstra) 


at the Tasmanian Herbarium, Tasmanian Museum & Art 
Gallery (HO); Department of Primary Industries, Parks, 
Water & Environment’s Natural Values Atlas database (NVA, 
DPIPWE 2020); Atlas of Living Australia (ALA 2020); 
the Australasian Virtual Herbarium (AVH 2020); public 
Facebook groups Zasmanian Native Orchids, Tasmanian 
Weeds, Tasmanian Flora and Field Naturalists of Tasmania 
(with several ‘posters’ contacted direct for additional 
information); and iNaturalist (with the search terms ‘Disa’ 
and ‘South African orchid’) (www.inaturalist.org, accessed 
19 August 2002). 

The data were ‘cleaned’ to produce a definitive worksheet 
of known locations of the species. ‘Cleaning’ included 
removal of obvious database duplicates; removal of records 
lacking sufficient information to precisely place the site, 
and shifting of point locations to more precise sites where 
sufficient information was provided (e.g. records currently 
shown in the sea were shifted to a nearby terrestrial location 
if collection notes indicated an obvious location). Data were 
managed in Excel and transferred to ArcGIS for review. 


Field survey 


Field surveys were opportunistic by the authors as part of 
other ecological assessments or undertaken by the observers 
noted in Table 1 (and information gathered through 
personal communications). The intent of field surveys was 
to document abundance and extent, as well as persistence 
potential and threat to adjacent native vegetation (ifpresent). 

Where practical, observed plants were removed by 
trowel (to gather the tuber and root system), bagged and 
removed from the site. Some specimens were curated to 
create voucher collections for the Tasmanian Herbarium 
and several sites were visited on numerous occasions (noted 


in table 1). 


Collecting history and distribution of the potentially invasive Disa bracteata (South African orchid) in Tasmania 55 


TABLE 1 — Collection details of all Tasmanian populations of Disa bracteata. 


Site No. ! Location ? Details 3 Comments 
la “Bridport Road, 4km SE _ T: State Growth 14 Nov. 2005, HO536631, A. Jungalwalla & D. Farmery. 
of Bridport” I: Flinders “Roadside verge” (from HO536631). 
M: Dorset This is the first formal collection of D. bracteata from Tasmania. 
N: North Unfortunately, at the time of collection there was confusion as to 
whether the specimen had been collected from Bridport Road or 
Greens Beach Road, but the collectors have indicated that Bridport 
Road is the most likely. Further discussions indicated that they had 
“recalled several plants” although only one was submitted. “On 6 
Dec. 2005; the site was surveyed by Alan Gray, Alex Buchanan and 
Matthew Baker from the Tasmanian Herbarium along with Jamie 
Cooper, the North East Regional Weed Officer. The species in 
question was not found” (from HO536631). 
lb Bridport Road T: State Growth 2 Mar. 2016, no specimen, A. North. 
I: Flinders Single, seasonally dead, roadside plant on Bridport Main Road 
M: Dorset between Bridport and Scottsdale near junction with Duncraggen 
N: North Road; in a scattered infestation of spanish heath sprayed in January; 
“unfortunately looks like it has shed seed” (A. North pers. comm.). 
This is effectively the same site as the original population (1a). 
Ic Bridport Road T: State Growth 17 Dec. 2017, no specimen, K. Ziegler. 
I: Flinders Nine point-locations representing 68 individuals, most fertilised 
M: Dorset and gone to seed, with some plants pulled up (K. Ziegler pers. obs.). 
N: North This indicates a significant proliferation of the original population 
(Ja). 
20 Dec. 2018, no specimen, A. Williams. 
500 + 110 individuals on west side of Bridport Road, plants 
predominantly located on flat area of road reserve above batter. 
50 + individuals on east side of Bridport Road. Population is 
approximately 1.1 km north of Boddington Road. Plants hand 
pulled. 
ld Bridport Road T: State Growth 17 Dec 2017, no specimen, K. Ziegler. 
I: Flinders Single plant, seed shedding, hand pulled. 
M: Dorset 20 Dec. 2018, no specimen, A. Williams 
N: North Six individuals, hand pulled. 
Site located west side of Bridport Rd, 730 m north of Beddineen 
Road. 
Ic & ld Bridport Road T: State Growth 8 Dec. 2019, no specimen, J. Cooper. 
I: Flinders 58 individuals at sites 1c & 1d. Plants hand pulled. Sites 1c & 1d 
M: Dorset surveyed together, including area of road reserve between sites. (J. 
N: North Cooper pers. comm.). 
2 “Latrobe, council- T: Local government 12 Nov. 2009, HO559795, P- Tonelli. 


Sa 


maintained waste site” 


“Spreyton/Tarleton area” 


Settlers Road, Latrobe 


Parkers Ford Road, Port 


Sorell 


I: Flinders 
M: Latrobe 
N: Cradle Coast 


T: Private 

I: Flinders 

M: Latrobe 

N: Cradle Coast 


T: Private 

I: Flinders 

M: Latrobe 

N: Cradle Coast 


T: Local government 
I: Flinders 

M: Latrobe 

N: Cradle Coast 


“In-fill wasteland; introduced grasses and pasture weeds, some low 
quality prostrate native plants (e.g. Hibbertia procumbens) in W end 
close to collection site. Only a single specimen located [excavated]; 
an extensive search of the local area failed to locate any others” 


(from HO559795). Refer to Plate 1. 


8 Nov. 2016, HO586101, G. Pocknee. 

“Semi-rural 3-acre block, front weedy lawn — sparsely grassed area 
with mosses and weeds; 5 plants” (from HO586101). 

“Still finding the occasional one & destroying” (Tasmanian Native 
Orchids Facebook page, G. Pocknee, 20 Nov. 2019). 


20 Nov. 2019, no specimen, Tasmanian Native Orchids Facebook 
page, BJ Green. 


12 Nov. 2019, no specimen, P. Collier. 

Roadside verge outside private reserve (Rubicon Sanctuary), road 
verge kept well slashed through late spring and summer. Single 
specimen excavated and disposed of (P. Collier pers. comm.). 


56 Mark Wapstra, Matthew L. Baker and Grant D. Daniels 


Table 1 cont. — Collection details of all Tasmanian populations of Disa bracteata. 


Site No. ! 


Location 2 


Details 3 


Comments 


5b 


6a 


6b 


10 


Junction to Squeaking 
Point Road, Port Sorell 


St Louis Drive, Port Sorell 


St Louis Drive, Port Sorell 


“Badger Head Road, N 
side, E of power pole 
T6912761A 229117” 


Turners Beach (Bass 
Highway, west of River 
Forth) 


Clerke Plains Road, 
Spalford 


“S side of Bass Highway” 


[between Penguin and 
Sulphur Creek] 


T: Local government 
I: Flinders 

M: Latrobe 

N: Cradle Coast 


T: Private 

I: Flinders 

M: Latrobe 

N: Cradle Coast 


T: Local government 
I: Flinders 

M: Latrobe 

N: Cradle Coast 


T: Local government 
I: Flinders 

M: West Tamar 

N: Cradle Coast 


T: State Growth 

I: Northern Slopes 
M: Central Coast 
N: Cradle Coast 


T: Private 

I: Northern Slopes 
M: Central Coast 
N: Cradle Coast 


T: State Growth: 
I: Northern Slopes 
M: Central Coast 
N: Cradle Coast 


4 Nov. 2018, no specimen, P. Collier (pers. comm.). 
Grassy roadside, single clumps (3 flower spikes). 


20 Nov. 2019, no specimen, S. & A. Farrelly (via Tasmanian Native 
Orchids Facebook page). 

Three plants inside property, pulled out and bagged, left in 
cupboard and found in mid-2020 — plants had re-sprouted inside 
bag, now destroyed in wood heater (S. & A. Farrelly pers. comm.). 
3 Jan. 2020, no specimen, P. Tonelli (via Tasmanian Native Orchids 
Facebook page). 

“Whilst collecting dry grass heads (on road side) for my finches in 
St Louis Drive, Port Sorell, I spotted a fruiting flower head of the 
dreaded/invasive Disa bracteata a species Orchid originally from 
South Africa ..then went on to dig out and destroy a dozen + there 
must be more I missed!” and “to say there was an ‘invasion’ would 
be an understatement! They were all along the ‘nature strip’ on both 
sides, many have been mown off” (P. Tonelli pers. comm.). 


4 Nov. 2014, HO581102, M. Wapstra & 13 Oct. 2015, 
HO583698. 

“Slashed grassy road verge; 2 in tight clump; both plants were 
uprooted” (from HO581102). Refer to Plate 2 and Plate 3. 

Site re-visited c. 1 year later and non-fertile individuals from 
precisely same patch dug out with spade (M. Wapstra pers. obs.). 
Site re-visited 7 Jul. 2020 — no signs of re-sprouting (M. Wapstra 
pers. obs.). 

21 Jan. 2020, no specimen, C. Broadfield (via Tasmanian Native 
Orchids Facebook page). 

“Scattered along the roadside bank. At least 50 but possibly many 
more” (C. Broadfield pers. comm.). 

25 Noy. 2019, no specimen, L. Davison (via Tasmanian Native 
Orchids Facebook page). 

“only about 3 inches high, first year it’s come up. In sand trucked 
in to my place from Sassafras about 10 to 12 years ago” (L. Davison 
pers. comm. 25 Nov. 2019) & “it hasn’t come back up yet and last 
year was the first year” (L. Davison pers. comm. 7 Aug. 2020). 


8 Nov. 2011, HO564548, S. Casey. 

“Less than 5 plants were observed; on top of batter with mainly 
introduced grasses, but with a few native herbs and orchids” (from 
HO564548). 

7 Mar. 2016, HO583720, M. Wapstra. 

“Grass and weed infested highway batter and flat rise; all individuals 
excavated with spade” (from HO583720). 

Approximately 188 individuals were observed along ca. 200 m 

of the highway verge, slope and flat (M. Wapstra pers. obs.). Site 
re-assessed on 31 Oct. 2017 by M. Wapstra and most plants 
marked (all in late bud to very early flower), which was followed by 
herbicide application on 13 Nov. 2017 (S. Radford pers. comm.). 
On 26 Feb. 2018, all plants appeared to be dead, but several had 
formed capsules (M. Wapstra pers. obs.). Refer to Plate 3 and Plate 
5. 
On 7 Nov. 2019, the site was re-assessed. Only 47 individuals 
were detected, all hand-pulled (M. Wapstra pers. comm.). Weed 
contractor has been advised and has been requested to visit site 
at least. twice yearly in early-mid Oct. and early to mid Nov. (S. 
Leighton, State Growth, pers. comm.). 


Collecting history and distribution of the potentially invasive Disa bracteata (South African orchid) in Tasmania 57 


Table 1 cont. — Collection details of all Tasmanian populations of Disa bracteata. 


SS Eee Eee See 
Sit. No. ! Location 2 Details 3 Comments 
SS Ee 
11 Old Stanley Road West, _T: Private Sep. 2018, no specimen, Allison Smith & Garth Smith (via 
Smithton I: King Tasmanian Native Orchids Facebook page). 
M: Circular Head “T photographed it on 11/11/2018. Allison first spotted it about 2 
N: Cradle Coast or 3 weeks before I posted it in the'FB orchid page asking for ID. 
So she first spotted it approximately the last week of September. - 
We only saw one that year, and that was the same one, that after 
discussion with you, Allison bagged and monitored, and saw it try 
to keep growing. The next year (Nov 2019) we monitored the spot 
and saw nothing in that spot. We monitored it quite regularly as 
there are T. pauciflora in the near vicinity that I was keeping an eye 
on to photograph. We will monitor it and the immediate surrounds 
again this year and in subsequent years. The spot it was growing is 
remnant coastal dune from when the sea level was a lot higher” (G. 
Smith pers. comm.). 
12 Musselroe area T: Private 12 Novy. 2013, no specimen, G. Daniels. 
ie I: Flinders Re-visited mid-November 2015, with intent to excavate single plant 
M: Dorset originally observed, but could not be re-found (G. Daniels per. 
N: North obs.). Refer to Plate 4. 
13 Orchard Avenue, T: Private 20 Nov. 2019, iNaturalist, M. Storer. 
Huonville I: Southern Ranges “29 individual plants. Dug out (with tubers) on 9/12/2019”. 
M: Huon Valley 
N: South 


Site no. cross-references to Fig. 2. 
g Location name in “” as per HO record. 


> -T_ Tenure; I — Interim Biogeographic ertonet letra for Australia (IBRA) Region; M — Maite ay N — Natural Resource 
Management Region. 


PLATE 4 — Habitat of Disa bracteata at Musselroe. (Image: G. 
Daniels) 


PLATE 5 — Habitat of Disa bracteata near Burnie on Bass 
_ Highway, with several individuals gone to seed in the 
foreground, circled. (Image: M. Wapstra) 


58 Mark Wapstra, Matthew L. Baker and Grant D. Daniels 


RESULTS 


The first record of D. bracteata in Tasmania was in 2005 (fig. 
2, table 1), 61 years after it was first detected in Western 
Australia in 1944. Since then, it has been reported from 
several additional Tasmanian sites (fig. 2, table 1). 

The species is now known from all three Natural Resource 
Management (NRM) regions; the Dorset, Latrobe, West 
Tamar, Central Coast, Circular Head and Huon Valley 
municipal areas; and the Flinders, Northern Slopes, 
King and Southern Ranges IBRA regions (defined in 
Environment Australia 2000). 

The species has a linear range in Tasmania of ca. 255 km 
(from Smithton to Musselroe) or ca. 190 km (Smithton 
to Huonville). Until the discovery of the species in 
Huonville, D. bracteata had a predominantly near-coastal 
distribution in northern Tasmania. Within Tasmania, D. 
bracteata has been collected from disturbed sites (e.g. waste 
ground around Latrobe), roadside verges (Badger Head 
Road, Parkers Ford Road, Bridport Road, Bass Highway), 
rough pasture (Musselroe), and urban-rural living habitats 
(Spreyton, Port Sorell, Huonville). The verges of several road 
sites supporting the species are frequently mown/slashed, 
meaning that the species may have gone undetected for a 
period, and this is a likely mechanism for localised dispersal. 


DISCUSSION 


D. bracteata has made a progressive easterly ‘march’ across 
Australia since first being detected in Western Australia. 
Once in Victoria, evidence indicates it has freely spread 
through that state, and the arrival of the species in Tasmania 
seemed almost inevitable. Multiple easterly incursions from 
Western Australia into eastern states may have occurred, 
although this is conjecture. While the arrival in Tasmania 
is a relatively recent event, it has not taken long for the 
species to become widespread across the north coast, and 
more recently further afield in southern Tasmania. 

Due to its early phase of establishment, D. bracteata is 
not perceived to be causing significant negative impacts 
in Tasmania at this time. In other states, the species has 
spread rapidly and covered large areas of extent (geographic 
range) and areas of occupancy (has colonised significant 
tracts of land). On mainland Australia, the species is a 
recognised threat to several nationally threatened orchid 
species (Commonwealth of Australia 2018), for example, 
Thelymitra matthewsii Cheeseman (Duncan 2010). In 
Tasmania, several sites with D. bracteata are close to habitats 
supporting threatened orchid species and weed invasion 
is already a recognised threat to Tasmania's native orchids 
(TSS 2017). 

The species is accepted as being fully naturalised in 
Tasmania (de Salas & Baker 2019). Large parts of Tasmania 
are climatically suitable, and it is hoped that the apparent 
lack of records for most of the state represents a genuine 
absence rather than the species being overlooked. We 
postulate that there is a genuine risk of D. bracteata 
spreading further in Tasmania over the coming decades. 


Understanding and predicting biological invasion processes 
is a valuable tool to anticipate ecological, economic and 
social impacts, and in some cases to enact fast response 
actions for biodiversity conservation (e.g. Pertierra et al. 
2016, Pertierra et al. 2017). Konowalik and Kolanowska 
(2018) undertook ecological niche modelling on D. 
bracteata. They found that most of the accessible areas are 
already occupied by this species, but future expansion will 
continue based on different climate change scenarios, with 
further expansion predicted especially in eastern Australia 


_and eastern Tasmania. 


The future spread of D. bracteata in Tasmania is likely 
to be into primary production areas, such as grazing/ 
cropping land and possibly commercial forestry plantations 
(where it occurs in other states), and parts of the formal 
conservation reserve system. Of most concern is that 
three of the known sites are close to conservation areas 
(Musselroe Bay Conservation Area, Rubicon Sanctuary 
private reserve and Narawntapu National Park). Unlike 
many native orchid species, Disa bracteata has less specific 
fungal associations (Bonnardeaux et al. 2007) and this may 
facilitate its weed-like colonisation of disturbed sites (Grant 
& Koch 2003, Collins et al. 2005, De Long et al. 2013). 
Climate change may increase the availability of climatically 
suitable areas for invasion in Tasmania, particularly at higher 
elevations. However, even with long-term change, the risk 
of expansion into the higher rainfall parts of the state, such 
as the extensive southwest Tasmanian Wilderness World 
Heritage Area is probably low. Globally non-indigenous 
orchids appear to present a relatively low risk of impact on 
natural processes but some localised impacts are recognised 
(Recart et al. 2013). 

To date, detections of D. bracteata have all been 
serendipitous, and a result of vigilant observers or during 
ecological assessments for development proposals (e.g., 
road widening projects). For most of the year, the species 
is undetectable, surviving as underground tubers buried 
below dense grass (plate 2, plate 3). While the leaves are 
distinctive, a small patch would be easily overlooked or 
mistaken for other weeds such as young plants of the 
common and widespread Tragopogon porrifolius L. (salsify). 
It is only once the flowering spike emerges that is more 
easily detected (and then only usually if the surrounding 
vegetation has been mown). Targeted surveys of potential 
habitat (mainly road verges in Tasmania) would be resource- 
hungry, likely to be ‘hit and miss’ due to seasonal variations 
in population emergence and abundance as well as great 
variability in detectability due to mowing/slashing/herbicide 
regime, and even’ then would possibly require complex 
traffic management to facilitate surveys. 

Disa bracteata may warrant listing as declared under the 
provisions of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 
as it may have an adverse impact on natural resources 
and maintenance of indigenous ecological processes in 
Tasmania. If listed as a declared species on the Tasmanian 
Weed Management Act 1999, Zone A is the classification 
most applicable to D. bracteata for all municipalities. This 
would mean eradication is the key objective, which we 
believe should be the short- and long-term management 


Collecting history and distribution of the potentially invasive Disa bracteata (South African orchid) in Tasmania 59 


objective in Tasmania. Efforts to eradicate the species 
from Latrobe, Bridport Road, Badger Head Road and 
Parkers Ford Road have been implemented (all by manual 
excavation of whole plants including tubers and roots). 
However, the species was re-detected the year after the 
first excavation of tubers from the Badger Head Road site 
(M. Wapstra per. obs.). The status of the population near 
Bridport (the site of original detection of the species in 
2005) was uncertain for many years, until observed again 
in 2016; annual control commenced with its rediscovery 
(as well as new observations of local sub-populations) but 
will need to continue for several years after over 500 plants 
were observed in one season (following excavation efforts 
the previous year). Despite apparent eradication from the 
Latrobe site at the time of detection, the species was re- 
found in the general region (Spreyton) in subsequent years, 
suggesting further populations may have gone undetected 
and that propagule pressure from external sources (such as 
vehicles arriving on mainland ferry services) may result in 
continual reintroductions at suitable locations. Searches for 
the species at the Musselroe site in 2015 failed to detect 
it, possibly meaning it is now absent from there, although 
no intervention has occurred and the prolonged absence 
at Bridport after the initial detection suggests that when 
local populations are establishing the species may not 
be detectable every year. The population along the Bass 
Highway near Burnie was manually removed in November 
2017 and will continue to be monitored (S. Radford pers. 
comm.). Treatment at this site has already reduced the 
number of individuals by more than 75% (M. Wapstra 
pers. obs.). The distribution of populations in the Port 
Sorell area suggest that roadside slashing-and residential 
development is actively encouraging the spread of the 
species. This means that while the long-term management 
objective should ideally be eradication, in practice this may 
become containment within the intent of the Tasmanian 
Weed Management Act 1999. 

While the recent spread of the species appears to indicate 
an almost inevitable slow march of D. bracteata across 
suitable parts of Tasmania, it has been effectively eradicated 
from several sites by early intervention. This provides hope 
that, with continued vigilance and active management, D. 
bracteata may remain widespread but only as a sparingly 
naturalised species. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 


We thank Peter Tonelli, Stephen Casey, Andrew North, Karen 
Ziegler, Phil Collier, Craig Broadfield, B.J. Green, Grace 
Pocknee, Steph & Andrew Farrelly, Garth Smith, Allison 
Smith and Michelle Storer for discussions regarding their 
observations of D. bracteata. Jillian Jones (Department of 
State Growth) and Shane Radford (Coastal Landcare Services) 
provided information on the control of the population near 
Burnie. Glenn Wardle provided information and data on 
the control and status of the Bridport population. Thanks 
go to David Jones, Gintaras Kantvilas and Lorilee Yeates for 
their helpful comments on drafts of this manuscript. Two 


referees (Joe Quarmby and Karen Stewart) provided useful 
commentary that improved the manuscript. 


REFERENCES 


Ackerman, J. 2007: Invasive orchids: weeds we hate to love? 
Lankesteriana 7(1—2): 19-21. 

ALA (Atlas of Living Australia) 2020: Occurrence records, 
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?q 
=lsid%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fid.biodiversity.org. 
au%2Fname%2Fapni%2F190752 (accessed 19 August 
2020). 

AVH (Australasian Virtual Herbarium) 2020: Occurrence records, 
https://avh.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?q=lsid%3Ahtt 
ps%3A%2F%2Fid.biodiversity.org.au%2Fname%2Fap 
ni%2F1907528qc=data_hub_uid%3Adh9 (accessed 19 
August 2020). 

Bonnardeaux, Y., Brundrett, M., Batty, A., Dixon, K., Koch, J. & 
Sivasithamparam, K. 2007: Diversity of mycorrhizal fungi 
of terrestrial orchids: compatibility webs, brief encounters, 
lasting relationships and alien invasions. Mycological Research 
111: 51-61. 

Breitwieser, I., Brownsey, P.J., Heenan, P.B., Nelson, W.A. & 
Wilton, A.D. (eds) 2018: Flora of New Zealand Online 
— Taxon Profiles, http://www.nzflora.info/factsheet/Taxon/ 
Orchidaceae.html (accessed 30 March 2018). 

Chen, X., Liu, They, Zhu, G., Lang, K., Ji, Z., Luo, Y., Jin Xa, Cribb, 
PJ., Wood, J.J., Gale, S.W., Ormerod, P., Vermeulen, J.J., 
Wood, H.P., Clayton, D. & Bell, A. 2009: Orchidaceae. Jn 
Wu, Z.Y, Raven, PH. & Hong, D.Y. (eds): Flora of China. 
Vol. 25 (Orchidaceae). Science Press, Beijing & Missouri 
Botanical Garden Press: St Louis: 584 pp. 

Clements, M. & Jones, D.L. 2008: Australian Orchid Name 
Index (13/6/2008), http://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/cd-keys/ 
orchidkey/Aust-Orch-Name-Index-08-06-13.pdf, (accessed 
30 March 2018). 

Collins, M., Koch, J., Brundrett, M. & Sivasithamparam, K. 
2005: Recovery of terrestrial orchids in the post-mining 
landscape. Selbyana 26(1/2): 255-264. 

Commonwealth of Australia 2018: Species Profile and Threats 
Database. Australian Government, Department of the 
Environment and Energy, http://www.environment.gov.au/ 
cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl. (accessed 19 August 2020). 

Conran, J., Maciunas, E. & Maciunas, K. 2011: Serapias lingua 
L. (tongue orchid): naturalised in the Adelaide Hills, 
South Australia — caveat cultivator? The Orchadian 16(12): 
556-561. 

De Long, J.R., Swarts, N.D., Dixon, K.W. & Egerton-Warburton, 
L.M. 2013: Mycorrhizal preference promotes habitat 
invasion by a native Australian ‘orchid: Microtis media. 
Annals of Botany 111: 409-418. 

de Salas, M.E. & Baker, M.L. 2019: A Census of the Vascular 
Plants of Tasmania, including Macquarie Island. Tasmanian 
Herbarium, Hobart: 156 pp. 

DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water 
& Environment) 2020: Natural Values Atlas, www. 
naturalvaluesatlas.tas.gov.au (accessed 8 August 2020). 

Duncan, M. 2010: National Recovery Plan for the Spiral Sun Orchid 
Thelymitra matthewsii. Department of Sustainability & 
Environment, Melbourne: 11 pp. 


. Environment Australia 2000: Revision of the Interim Biogeographic 


Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA) and Development of 
Version 5.1 — Summary Report. Department of Environment 
and Heritage, Canberra: 36 pp. 

Gardner, R.O. & de Lange, PJ. 1996: Naturalised plants in New 
Zealand: new or noteworthy records. Auckland Botanical 


Society Journal 51(2): 74-77. 


60 Mark Wapstra, Matthew L. Baker and Grant D. Daniels 


Goldblatt, P. & Manning, J. 2000: Cape Plants: A conspectus of the 
Cape flora of South Africa, (Strelitzia 9). National Botanic 
Institute of South Africa, Pretoria and Missouri Botanical 
Garden Press, St Louis: 744 pp. 

Grant, C.D. & Koch, J. 2003: Orchid species succession in 
rehabilitated bauxite mines in Western Australia. Australian 
Journal of Botany 51: 453-457. 

Howell, C. & Sawyer, J.W.D. 2006: New Zealand Naturalised 
Vascular Plant Checklist. New Zealand Plant Conservation 
Network, Wellington: 60 pp. 

Jones, D.L. 2006: A Complete Guide to Native Orchids of Australia 
including the Island Territories. Reed New Holland, Sydney: 
496 pp. 

Konowalik, K. & Kolanowska, M. 2018: Climatic niche shift 
and possible future spread of the invasive South African 
orchid Disa bracteata in Australia and adjacent areas. Peer] 
6: e6107 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6107 

Leistner, O.A. (ed.) 2000: Seed plants of Southern Africa: families 
and genera. (Strelitzia 10). National Botanical Institute, 
Pretoria: 776 pp. 

Linder, H.P. 1981: Taxonomic studies in the Disinae. V. A revision 
of the genus Monadenia. Bothalia 13(3 & 4): 339-363. 

Mabberley, D.J. 2008: Mabberleys Plant-Book: A Portable Dictionary 
of Plants, Their Classification and Uses. Third edition. 
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1021 pp. 

Pertierra, L.R., Baker, M., Howard, C., Vega, G.C., Olalla- 
Tarraga, M.A. & Scott, J. 2016: Assessing the invasive 
risk of two non-native Agrostis species on sub-Antarctic 
Macquarie Island. Polar Biology 39(12): 2361-2371. 


Pertierra, L.R., Aragon, P., Shaw, J.D., Bergstrom, D.M., Terauds, 
A. & Olalla-Tarraga, M.A. 2017: Global thermal niche 
models of two European grasses show high invasion risks 
in Antarctica. Global Change Biology 23(7): 2863-2873. 

Recart, W., Ackerman, J.A. & Cuevas, A.A. 2013: There goes the 
neighborhood: apparent competition between invasive and 
native orchids mediated by a specialist florivorous weevil. 
Biological Invasions 15: 283-293. 

Richardson, EJ., Richardson, R.G. & Shepherd, R.C.H. (2016). 
Weeds of the South-East: An Identification Guide for Australia. 
R.G. and FJ. Richardson, Meredith: 522 pp. 

Rupp, H.M.R. 1947: Two new orchids from Western Australia. 
Australian Orchid Review 11: 70. 

Scott, J.K. & Delfosse, E.S. 1992: Southern African plants 
naturalised in Australia: a review of weed status and 
biological control potential. Plant Protection Quarterly 
7: 70-80. . 

Scott, J.K. & Panetta, ED. 1993: Predicting the Australian weed 
status of Southern African plants. Journal of Biogeography 
20(1): 87-93. 

Synge, PM. (ed.) 1977: Dictionary of Gardening A Practical and 
Scientific Encyclopedia of Horticulture. Second Edition. 
Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2316 pp. 

TSS (Threatened Species Section) 2017: Threatened Tasmanian 
Orchids Flora Recovery Plan. Department of Primary 
Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart: 95 pp. 


(Accepted 12 October 2020) 


Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 1 54, 2020 61 


LONG-TERM MONITORING OF THE THREATENED LESSER GUINEAFLOWER 
HIBBERTIA CALYCINA (DC.) N.A.WAKEF. (DILLENIACEAE) IN TASMANIA 


by Perpetua A.M. Turner, Mark Wapstra, Allison Woolley, Katriona Hopkins, Amelia J. Koch 
and Fred Duncan 


(with four text-figures, two plates, one table and five appendices) 


Turner, P.A.M., Wapstra, M., Woolley, A., Hopkins, K., Koch, A.J. & Duncan, F. 2020 (9:xii): Long-term monitoring of the threatened 
lesser guineaflower Hibbertia calycina (DC.) N.A.Wakef. (Dilleniaceae) in Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of 
Tasmania 154: 61-82. ISSN: 0080-4703. Forest Practices Authority, 30 Patrick Street, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia (PAMT™, 
AJK); Discipline of Biological Sciences, School of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia 
(PAMT*, AJK); Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania, 28 Suncrest Avenue, Lenah Valley, Tasmania 7008, Australia (MW); 
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, 134 Macquarie Street, Hobart, Tasmania 7000, Australia (AW); 
Stonyford, St Helens, Tasmania 7216, Australia (KH); The Plant Press, 386 Richmond Road, Cambridge, Tasmania 7170, Australia 
(FD). *Author for correspondence. Email: perpetua.turner@utas.edu.au 


This paper describes the distribution of the threatened shrub Hibbertia calycina (DC.) N.A.Wakef., a distinctive plant restricted to northeast 
Tasmania. It compares changes over time in population size and evaluates the species response to disturbance. Results found H. calycina 
distribution is restricted to isolated clumps on highly insolated ridges and steep upper slopes of fine-grained Mathinna-series sedimentary 
rocks in dry sclerophyll forest dominated by Eucalyptus sieberi L.Johnson. Nine populations were documented with an estimated area of 
occupancy of 0.43 km? and area of extent measuring 95 km?, demonstrating that the current listing of H. calycina as vulnerable is appro- 
priate on Tasmania's Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. We believe that the distribution of the present population is a result of natural 
factors (i.e. restricted habitat range and natural fire events) and anthropogenic factors (managed fire regime and illegal firewood cutting). 
Although frequent fire and roading have the potential to impact populations, H. calycina appears to be stable without active management 
in a landscape of patchy, regular, low severity fire. Our results indicate susceptibility to the soil-borne pathogen Phytophthora cinnamomi is 


likely less problematic than previously postulated, yet more data and research is required before management is changed. 
Key Words: fire, forest, Phytophthora, management, population, conservation, plantation. 


INTRODUCTION 


Hibbertia calycina (DC.) N.A.Wakef. (de Salas & Baker 
2019) is a non-endemic native vascular plant species listed 
as vulnerable on the schedules of Tasmania’s Threatened 
Species Protection Act 1995 but not listed at a national level. 
H. calycina is managed according to the Threatened Species 
Strategy for Tasmania (DPIPWE 2000), which addresses 
key threatening processes affecting species identified as 
having a high priority for conservation (DPIPWE 2000, 
Commonwealth of Australia 2015). Also found in Victoria, 
New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, the 
original Tasmanian threatened species listing of H. calycina 
is due to herbarium and early observational data citing a 
restricted range and localised distribution with little else 
published on the taxon’s response to disturbance. Many of 
Australia’s vascular plants are declared as threatened with 
extinction (DEE 2020) due to their localised distributions 
and restricted ranges which make them particularly 
vulnerable to habitat loss, disease, invasive species and altered 
disturbance regimes (Dirzo & Raven 2003, Burgman et al. 
2007, Silcock & Fensham 2018). It is widely recognised 
that ongoing research and monitoring of changes and trends 
in the distribution, abundance and response of species to 
disturbance is important for providing scientific credibility 
to conserving threatened species (Craigie et al. 2018, Legge 
et al. 2018). 

H. calycina has an erect habit and can reach heights of up 
to 1.4 m. Showy yellow flowers of approx. 15 mm diameter 


are often observed in spring, with a secondary flowering in 
autumn (Harden & Everett 1990, Toelken 1996, authors 
pers. obs.) and can occur on very small plants. Despite 
being distinctive and its area having a strong European 
history of mining dating back to the 1880s (Bacon 2013), 
H. calycina was not recorded until 1980. Records from 
1980-1995 reported five distinct populations with this 
time period also seeing the discovery of other species: e.g., 
Mirbelia oxylobioides F.Muell from Heathy Hills Reserve 
in southern Tasmania (Threatened Species Section 2020). 
It is likely that in Tasmania H. calycina was overlooked 
and we do not believe it was introduced (appendix 1). 
The distribution of H. calycina coincided with commercial 
timber harvesting in the 1990s and little was known about 
the potential impacts to the species of timber harvesting 
and other associated activities such as roading, fire and 
disease. To address this, an initial 1995 survey effort 
aimed at determining population distribution and assessing 
the abundance of individuals in different populations 
(Hopkins 1995). Records of H. calycina prior to the 1995 
survey indicated that it had a restricted distribution in the 


_ Scamander area on Tasmania's northeast coast. Known pre- 


1995 sites, detailed in Hopkins (1995), included Mt Echo, 
Loila Pinnacle, Pyramid Hill and southern Skyline Tier 
(sites 3/4/5 Map 19 in Barker (1994)), and a population 
south of Scamander at McIntyres Ridge (G.E. Williams 
pers. comm. 1994). The extensive 1995 survey by Hopkins 
(1995) and subsequent follow-up surveys occurred while 
timber harvesting was active in Eucalyptus sieberi forests. 


62 Perpetua A.M. Turner, Mark Wapstra, Allison Woolley, Katriona Hopkins, Amelia J. Koch and Fred Duncan 


This paper reports on three surveys undertaken to monitor 
the population distribution and abundance of H. calycina 
and determine how its population density has changed 
over 23 years of monitoring, in response to fire and the 
absence of active management. We discuss threatening 
processes to the species and provide recommendations for 
future management. 


METHOD 
Study area 


The study focused on an area of approximately 544 km? 
which encompassed previously known locations of H. 
calycina in northeastern Tasmania (Hopkins 1995). The 
study was confined to E. sieberi forests, which are restricted 
to northeast lowland and upland slopes (to 500 m elevation), 
predominantly on Ordovician sediments (Mathinna Beds), 
Devonian granites and Jurassic dolerite (Grant et al. 1995) 


(fig. 1). 


rid a 
I 


ce] © 
" Suge: 
Oo 
vu 
aie ty £9) 


F o-o-8 
od Vy Yuen Ve 40g Ve VUaU Ye Usd 
wea yg % 
Y oy" .é) 
Chg 
rhs) 
vu a coe 


a 
a 


a oe yg 
Be ie ad Rae 

vu wee Cd) 
oe a 
Pe aaCd 


“ 
ow 


a 


ay 
38 
iY, 


Land Tenure 


nland water 


WO 


2 


> 


SS 


| Private Freehold 


Crown 


Future Potential 
Production Forest 


Rigg Permanent Timber 

‘3 A, Production Zone Land 

AT] Local Government 
Ee Conservation area 


WY 


=O id 2 Ro 
eee Kilometres 
a re fod 2 


590000 595000 


WF: KT Gras, : 
EG 


Soils derived from Ordovician sediments (Mathinna Beds) 
are typically poor in nutrients, shallow and free draining 
with a poor capacity to hold moisture. These areas are 
characterised by dramatic sharp ridges with steep slopes 
leading to deeply incised gullies with ferns and typically 
contain E. sieberi forests that are open dry sclerophyll forest 
with a secondary canopy of Allocasuarina littoralis (Salisb.) 
L.A.S. Johnson, and a very sparse lower understorey layer 
of various shrub species including Pudtenaea gunnii Benth. 
Descriptions of vegetation can be found in TASVEG 


(Kitchener & Harris 2013). 


The study area has a history of mining (predominantly 
tin and some gold) dating back to the 1880s (Bacon 
2013) with many mineshafts and terracing still evident 
in the district. Mining is not presently active in the area, 
although an exploration license is current for Pyramid Hill 
(Tasmanian Government 2017). Some forestry activities 
would have been associated with mining; but since 1970 
most forestry operations comprised logging of native 
forest for sawlogs and pulpwood, and conversion of some 
sites (generally on less insolated slopes) to plantations of 


ve 
@ vw dD 
ne] Eee cay cate So 


WE ke) 6 


Beaumaris 


x Scamander 


610000 


FIG. 1. — Hibbertia calycina populations in northeastern Tasmania. Numbers refer to ridgelines (see table 1); 1. Mt Echo, 2. Loila 
Pinnacle/Wolfram, 3. Pyramid, 4. Orieco, 5. Bolpeys, 6. McIntyres East and Mcintyres West, 7. Skyline, 8. Flagstaff, 9. Basin Creek. 


Inset: location of H. calycina in Tasmania: 


Long-term monitoring of the threatened lesser guineaflower Hibbertia calycina in Tasmania 63 


Pinus radiata D.Don. There were few forestry operations 
in potential H. calycina habitat in native forest for years 
1995-2018. Invasive species (plant and animal) are not 
common, except for P radiata wildlings near plantations 
and the soil pathogen Phytophthora cinnamomi that occurs 
in this area (Schahinger et al. 2003). 

Northeastern Tasmania has a relatively mild climate 
with a mean minimum/maximum temperature for January 
of 12.7/22.1°C and for July of 4.5/13.8°C (Bureau of 
Meteorology 2018). Rainfall averages 689 mm per annum 
and rainfall events are irregular; mean monthly rainfall 
ranges from a low of 45.3 mm (February) to a high of 69.0 
mm (April) (Bureau of Meteorology 2018). There are no 
predominant winter or summer peaks in rainfall although 
occasional low-pressure systems off Tasmania's east coast 
can result in intense rainfall events (up to 150 mm in 48 
hours; Bureau of Meteorology 2018). Rainfall irregularity 
means that intense periods of rainfall are often followed by 
long dry periods (Neyland & Askey-Doran 1996). 


Distribution and density of H. calycina 


The past and present distribution of H. calycina was 
investigated using historical accounts (including published 
literature), reports, photographs, verification of herbarium 
specimens, retrieval and verification of unpublished data and 
mapping. Due to changes in technology there are limitations 
with previous mapping. However, these data provide useful 
baselines upon which to reference and compare present data 
and mapping. Field surveys to determine the extent and 
size of H. calycina populations were undertaken in 1995, 
with follow-up surveys in 2003/04 and 2017/18 focused 
on monitoring the 1995 survey populations, and additional 
discoveries. A ‘clump’ was defined as a group of H. calycina 
individuals no more than 50 m apart. During these surveys, 
movementand access were restricted where very steep terrain 
was encountered and some plants may have been missed. 
The first survey, between April and September 1995, 


PLATE 1 — Hibbertia 
calycina in situ (note the very 
open understorey typical of 
most sites supporting the 
species), with inset showing 
the distinctive (yellow) 
flowers, and leaf shape and 
arrangement. Arrow indicates 
an H. calycina plant. 


surveyed approximately 26 ridgeline systems by vehicle with 
regular on-foot ground checking (where visibility was low 
due to topography and/or understorey) for the presence of 
H. calycina (fig. 1). The target species was located on eight 
of these ridgelines and upper slopes. Sketch maps of H. 
calycina clumps were produced by hand-drawing polygons 
onto 1:25,000 scale maps. Calculations of boundaries 
were later checked against maps and aerial photos where 
available. There was some variability in the detail of the 
data collected between clumps. 

The areas identified as having H. calycina in the 1995 
sketch maps were re-surveyed in October 2003 and January 
2004, apart from a portion of one ridgeline which had been 
burnt (appendix 2d: Oreico36). One new ridgeline was 
surveyed due to anecdotal information (Flagstaff). Again, 
sketch maps of the nine known ridgeline populations were 
drawn and later digitised into a Geographical Information 
System (GIS) in 2017. Detailed data on the abundance of 
H. calycina was collected for some but not all nine clumps. 

In November 2017 and February 2018 only eight of the 
nine known ridgelines were re-surveyed due to logistical 
constraints. During this survey the location and boundaries 
of all known H. calycina clumps were mapped using GPS 
techniques, and collection of positional data for individual 
H1. calycina was undertaken in November 2017 and April 
2018 using a Garmin Etrex handheld GPS unit accurate to 
5-15 m. Two operators (PAMT and MW) each moved a 
GPS handheld unit around a H. calycina clump, recording 
a point for every plant where possible: at some sites where 
many individuals were present, the final number of plants 


recorded was an estimate, not an absolute count. Plant 


height for some clumps were recorded with height data 
provided in Appendices 3 and 5. 

The number of H. calycina plants per ridgeline were 
summed for each survey event and compared. The small 
number of samples per ridgeline restricted statistical 
analyses. The size of each H. calycina population was 
visually compared over time, but only a brief overview is 


64 Perpetua A.M. Turner, Mark Wapstra, Allison Woolley, Katriona Hopkins, Amelia J. Koch and Fred Duncan 


provided in the results. The density of 1. calycina plants 
(per hectare) was calculated for each clump in 2017/18. 
Spatial data were analysed in a GIS database (ArcMap) 
and Excel spreadsheet. 


Site disturbance: Phytophthora and fire 


Foreach clump, the year of the most recent fire, fire frequency 
and mean fire interval were determined from the surrounding 
area, historical records and local knowledge (e.g., Neyland 
& Askey-Doran 1996, G. Williamson pers. comm. 2018). 
Fire frequency was the number of times that fires occurred 
within a site between 1975 and 2018 (43 years). The mean 
fire interval fora clump was calculated (when more than one 
fire was recorded for a site) as the sum of the years between 
each fire event divided by the number of fire events for that 
clump. Where only one fire event was recorded, the mean 
fire interval was unknown. The impact of fire on H. calycina 
was assessed by considering how the density of H. calycina 
related to year of the most recent fire and fire interval. All 
population analyses were performed within the statistical 
freeware R v.3.4.1 (R Core Team 2019) with packages 
ggplot2 (version 3.3.2, Wickham 2016) and dplyr (version 
1.0.0, Wickham er a/. 2020). 
The suspected presence of Phytophthora cinnamomi was 
recorded by noting symptoms during the 2003/04 survey 
if H. calycina and/or other susceptible species (indicator 
species; Schahinger et a/. 2003) were showing signs of disease 
(i.e., symptoms including dead plants, dieback, yellowing 
of foliage) where other resistant plants looked healthy. In 
2017/18 two sites were tested for P cinnamomi where H. 
calycina plants with yellowing foliage were identified. Tests 
were done by collecting 5 cm? soil samples from around 
the roots of three yellowing H. calycina individuals and 
then combining the samples for each site before laboratory 
processing. Soil was analysed for the presence/absence of P 
cinnamomi using the methods of Ribeiro (1978). 


RESULTS 
Distribution 


In 2017/18 a total of nine H. calycina populations were 
documented with an estimated 15,267 plants, in an area of 
occupancy of 0.43 km? and area of extent measuring 95 km. 
The data suggest there has been an increase in the number 
of ridgeline H. calycina populations over time; however, 
this increase may be attributed to improved recording 
and searching techniques with greater precision over time. 
The 1995 survey found a total of 33 distinct clumps of H. 
calycina on 8 of the 26 ridgelines surveyed (fig. 1, table 
1, appendix 4). Of the 1995 survey clumps, in 2003/04 
plants of one Oreico clump were labelled ‘extinct’, and 
one clump at Flagstaff was added (fig. 1, table 1, appendix 
4). Thus in 2003/04 a ninth ridgeline was added but the 
number of clumps remained the same (33). The number of 
clumps increased to 41 across the same nine ridgelines in 
2017/18 (table 1, fig. 1). In addition to recording all clumps 


PLATE 2. — Hibbertia calycina growing in a road verge at Mt 
Echo. 


documented in 2003/04, the 2017/18 survey recorded an 
additional clump at Basin Creek. 

Where it was possible to compare, the boundary maps for 
the three survey periods largely found close agreement in the 
boundaries of H. calycina populations over time. However, 
some clumps had changed, with some single clumps in 1995 
becoming multiple clumps (e.g., Pyramid26—29), some 
clumps had expanded and combined (e.g., Mt Echo1, Loila 
Pinnacle/Wolfram5, Loila Pinnacle/ Wolfram 12, Oreico32, 
Mclntyres East37, table 1, appendix 2), and at 15 clumps 
the range expanded and plants were observed right up to 
the road verge (e.g., MtEchol, pl. 2). Of the four clumps 
surveyed at Oreico in 1995, plants of one clump (Oreico36 
of Hopkins 1995) were noted as extinct in 2017/18 (table 
1, appendix 2d). At some clumps where H. calycina occurs 
ona slope, populations appear to extend directly downslope 
over time, perpendicular to the contour (e.g., Mt Echol, 
Pyramid30, Oreico32, Oreico33, appendix 2a, c and d). 


Density 


There is evidence of an overall increase in the number of 
H. calycina plants over time (fig. 2). In 1995 there was a 
very rough estimate of 4,500 H. calycina plants. In 2003/04 
this had increased to over 7000 plants, and the 2017/18 
survey recorded a total of 15,267 H. calycina plants (table 
1), averaging a density of 311 plants/ha in the clumps. 
However, it is likely that for all surveys the total number 
of plants is an underestimate; many plants on the larger 
ridgelines may have been missed and it is likely that in some 
instances a single logged data point represents more than an 
individual plant. While very high densities of plants were 
found in many clumps (table 1), the size of these clumps 
was typically very small. For clumps over | ha in size, the 
density of H. calycina ranged from 89-565 plants/ha (table 1). 


—— << 


Long-term monitoring of the threatened lesser guineaflower Hibbertia calycina in Tasmania 65 


Nn w w 
Q 4 pal 

f=] 
Shissas 
1 Voce oe 


No. of H. calycina plants 


2000+ 
15004 
40004 
500 | 

6 ema 3 sre ane ! 


Ridgeline 


1 1995 [2003/2004 fl} 2017/2018 


FIG, 2. — Number of Hibbertia calycina plants recorded during each survey by ridgeline. Note: some incomplete data, e.g., Mcintyres 
West, Flagstaff and Basin Creek. Maximum value indicated where a range is given (see table 1 for details) 


Impact of fire 


Signs of historical or recent fire (e.g., fire-hollows or charcoal 
on trees) were present at all clumps and time since the 
most recent fire ranged between 2006 and 2017 (table 
1). Our results suggest that fire can, but does not always, 
kill H. calycina, and regeneration usually occurs after fire 
where fire severity is low. Flagstaff40 was visited before and 
after being burnt in 2017. In June 2019, no individuals 
were found at the clump location. Four visits after June 


2019 and before April 2020 recorded a total of two living 


plants, presumably from seed, and no re-sprouting plants 
(MW pers. obs. 2020). Similarly, signs of high severity fire 
(large, dead trees with fire-hollowed bases) were found at 


Oreico in 2017/18 and the plants of the Oreico36 clump 
of the 1995 survey were deemed extinct in 2003/04. Our 
observations of H. calycina populations found mean height 
of plants varied with time since the most recent fire (e.g., 
Skyline35, McIntyres37, Pyramid30, appendix 3) and the 
density of H. calycina plants in a clump appears to increase 
with time since the most recent fire (fig. 3). 

The fire frequency varied. For Mt Echo the fire frequency 
was four fires per ~50 years and for McIntyres West it 
was two fires per ~50 years (appendix 4). The mean fire 
interval ranged from four years (Mt Echo3) to 30 years 
(McIntyres38) with an overall mean of 18 years + 3 SE 
(table 1, fig. 4). A longer mean fire interval appears to 
relate to a higher density of H. calycina (fig. 4). Frequent 


16004 Clump 
a HE Mt Echo 183 
14004 (1 MtEcho 284 
& Loila Pinnacle/Wolfram 
s EA Pyramid 18-29 
© 1200+ EI Pyramid 30 
= @ Oreico 
s 40004 ${ Skyline 
g ne Mcintyres East 
= © Bolpeys 
S 80074 se Flagstaff 
= ae Basin Creek 
= 
2 | = 
wm 
12) 
l=, 
oO 
2 4004 
2 
00> f q x 
al 
eecrmene ; is 
2004 2006 2008 2010 


2012 2014 2016 2018 


Most recent fire (year) 


FIG. 3. — Mean density of Hibbertia calycina (+ SE) (plants/ha) recorded by clump grouped by ridgeline and most recent fire (year), 
for the 2017/2018 survey. Mt Echo 1&3 (n=2); Mt Echo 2&4 (2); Loila Pinnacle/Wolfram (12); Pyramid (12); Oreico (4); Skyline (2); 


McIntyres East (1); Bolpeys (1); Flagstaff (1); Basin Creek (1). 


66 Perpetua A.M. Turner, Mark Wapstra, Allison Woolley, Katriona Hopkins, Amelia J. Koch and Fred Duncan 


TABLE 1 — Population data of Hibbertia calycina from all surveys. 


Estimated area (ha) H. calycina Most recent Mean fire 


Ridgeline = Clump No. of plants 
no. plants/ha fire (month/ _ interval 
year) (years) 
2017/ 1995 2003/ 2017/ 1995 2003/ 2017/ 2017/ 
2018 2004 20182 2004 2018 2018 
Mt Echo 134 2135 15.45 138 10/2012 9 
(frb) 
24 1061 3.78 281 10/2008 5 
(frb) 
>500 250-500 10 - no data 
33.4 834 3.14 266 10/2012 4 
(frb) 
44 273 3.07 89 10/2008 — unknown 
(frb) 
Loila 53.4 756 1.61 469.57 
Pinnacle/ 64 262 0.43 609.30 
Wolfram >100 no data 24 
74 1] 0.01 1100.00 
84 5 0.01 500.00 
94 ain >500 35 73 no data 0.06 583.33 
10 a Gea oi GQ 10 0.28 471.43 
an 10/2011 
4 
11 plants at 360 no data 0.99 363.64 (rb) lata 
124 some sites) unknown no data 1.70 NA 
1334 0.12 83.33 
120- 150 2 
144 11 0.02 550.00 
15 52 0.34 152.94 
16 <500  —«150 893 4 3 1.58 565.19 24 
17 21 0.05 420.00 
Pyramid 18 : no data 631 3 no data 0.44 1434.09 24 
193 1 0.002 500.00 unknown 
20 ~80 Le no-data 0.002 500.00 
21 55 0.11 500.00 
223 150-270 230 3 0.26 884.62 
233 iD 31 0.04 775.00 10/2011 
24 5 50 1 3 0.002 500.00 (frb) 
25 ee 0.003 333.33 
26 92 0.11 836.36 
27, 98 4210 0.02 500.00 
no data 
28 2 0.002 1000.00 
29 no data 2 0.003 666.67 
303 <100 ~450 775 1 ~0.04 1.53 506.54 08/2006 (frb; 23 
NE side of 
road only) 
Oreico 31 25-50 657 nodata ‘1.32 497.73 27 
extinct? 0 0 no data 0.00 NA NA 
32 ~500 0 1436 6 no data 2:92 491.78 ane 
33 25-55 101 no data 0.48 210.42 unknown 
no data 0.75 286.67 


Long-term monitoring of the threatened lesser guineaflower Hibbertia calycina in Tasmania — 67 


Ridgeline — Clump No. of plants Estimated area (ha) H. calycina Most recent Mean fire 
no. plants/ha — fire(month/ _ interval 
year) (years) 
2017/ 1995 2003/ 2017/ 1995 2003/ 2017/ 2017/ 
2018 2004 20182 2004 2018 2018 
Skyli 353 310 495 3 0.36 1375.00 
yline <500 AG 12/2006 13 
363 167 40 nodata 0.15 266.67 __ (esc) 
Mclntyres 374 >500 >3000 2775 5 nodata 6.87 403.93 12/2006 unknown 
(East) (esc) 
Mclntyres 384 ~500 >1000 NA 6-7 nodata NA NA 12/2006 30 
(West)! (esc) 
Bolpeys 39 ~-250 = ~500 695. 2-3 nodata 0.48 1447.92 12/2007 unknown 
06 (esc) 
Flagstaff 40 = 250-5003 68 - no data 0.42 161.90 2017 (acc) 13* 
Basin 4] S < 102 - - 0.13 784.62 05/2012 unknown 
Creek (frb) 


Bold numbers indicate values apply between horizontal lines in that column. 

1 McIntyres Creek West population was not surveyed in 2017-2018 due to access and funding constraints. 

2 At some sites where many individuals were present, the number of plants logged was an estimate, not an absolute count. 

3 In 2003-2004 survey Phytophthora cinnamomi was suspected at these clumps (symptoms noted) and confirmed at Skyline. 
4 Clump included in Phytophthora Management Area (Schahinger et al. 2003). 


1600 
ist) 
1400 bs} 
_. 1200 
o 
3 A 
o 
2 4000 
a @ Mt Echo 
g 4 Loila Pinnacle/Wolfram 
5 ‘ 
= 800 fH Pyramid 
8 ® Oreico 
= 3% Skyline 
2 all a “ X_ Flagstaff 
Oo 
o HA e 
Go A 
4007 
a" Fs 
2004 
00 a x A 
o4 
— —— cceemarat penanencestrrnere T 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 


Mean fire interval (years) 


FIG. 4. — Density of Hibbertia calycina (plants/ha) by ridgeline recorded during the 2017/2018 survey against the mean fire interval 
(years) for that clump. See Table 1 for details. 


68 Perpetua A.M. Turner, Mark Wapstra, Allison Woolley, Katriona Hopkins, Amelia J. Koch and Fred Duncan 


but patchy fires do not appear to significantly impact the 
area and density of H. calycina clumps (e.g., Mt Echo). 


Phytophthora cinnamomi 


The 1995 survey identified 2 cinnamomi was already 
threatening the viability of H. calycina clumps. The 2003/04 
survey only confirmed P cinnamomi from one site (Skyline), 
with another 12 sites suspected as being infected by sighting 
one or many plants showing symptoms of infection (table 
1). While in 2017/18 two sites were tested for P cinnamomi 
(Mt Echoand Loila Pinnacle/ Wolfram), both were negative. 
A search of the Atlas of Living Australia (2020) records three 
sightings of PR cinnamomi from sites at which H. calycina 
is present (Mt Echo in 2001 by R. Schahinger record # 
526938; Flagstaff in 2003 by A. Woolley record #998942; 
Skyline in 1973 by C. Palzer # 526097). 


DISCUSSION 


The present study suggests there has been an increase in the 
number of individual H. calycina plants and clumps between 
1995 and 2018, a period when the main disturbance in the 
area was wildfire. The number of known H. calycina clumps 
was 33 in 1995, and this increased to 41 in 2017/18. This 
change may in part be attributed to an additional ridgeline 
with H. calycina being located and some 1995 clumps 
‘splitting’ over time (although others joined, and one clump 
went extinct). It is possible that the increase in number of 
clumps is also due to greater sampling efforts with time. 
Regardless of the reason, the results suggest that the number 
of clumps has remained relatively stable over this time period. 

A comparison of the 1995 sketch maps with the 2017/18 
GIS maps suggests that many clumps have expanded 
downslope over time (MW, KH & PAMT pers. obs.). 
This is possibly a product of heavy rain causing seed to 
wash downslope, together with suitable temperature and 
moisture conditions for germination (Schatral er al. 1997). 


Fire 


While the study area has a history of mining and commercial 
timber harvesting, the only disturbance occurring during 
the study period was wildfire. The fires in the area have 
been patchy, meaning there is some variability in the fire 
history of the different clumps. The results from the current 
study indicate that severe fire can eliminate populations. 
Elsewhere, presumably after less severe fire, populations 
recover. One clump (Flagstaff) was burnt in 2017 and 
revisited about six months later and there were no signs 
of plants regenerating until three years after the fire when 
two seedlings were recorded. Another clump (Oreico36) 
displayed evidence of high intensity fire in 1995 and the 
H. calycina plants at the site are now considered extinct. In 
comparison, successful recruitmentand spread of plants was 
evident at long unburnt clumps, such as Mt Echo2 and Mt 
Echo4 (MW pers. obs.). H.. calycina does not require burning 
for regeneration of seed-set and infrequent fire regimes are 


thought to favour plant recruitment and re-sprouting from 
lignotubers (Bell er al. 1993). 

There is little information on the fire regimes of dry 
sclerophyll £. sieberi forests of northeastern Tasmania 
prior to European settlement (Crawford et al. 1962) or for 
the early years of European colonisation. In more recent 
times, highly flammable and fire resistant (regenerates 
post-fire) E. sieberi forests are little impacted by a single or 
repeated understorey fire (Collins 2020). However, repeated 
short fire intervals (i.e., < 10 years) may cause long-term 
changes, converting the understorey of forests dominated 
by epicormic sprouting £. sieberi to an alternative state 
(Pyrke & Marsden-Smedley 2005, Fairman et al. 2016, 
Collins 2020). In the past 30 years Tasmanian E. sieberi 
forests have been subject to a fuel reduction burn program 
with a recommended seven-year return cycle, to reduce fuel 
loads and risk to infrastructure (regional towns, mining 
and commercial timber harvesting operations) (Neyland 
& Askey-Doran 1996). This is shorter than many of the 
ecological burning regimes used elsewhere in Australia 
such as the 20-25 years minimum inter-fire period for 
box-ironbark forests (Neyland & Askey-Doran 1996, 
Tolsma et al. 2010). Results in the present study suggest 
H. calycina appears to benefit from long (approx. 18-year) 
fire return cycles and can recover from relatively intense fire 
via re-sprouting from lignotubers and epicormic growth 
(Hopkins 1995). 

Another disturbance related to fire is the maintenance 
of vehicular tracks to facilitate access for fire prevention 
and fuel reduction; these tracks are mainly located on 
ridgelines. For example, the clump that currently straddles 
Trout Road (Pyramid30, table 1) is subject to periodic 
road grading that results in gravel and spoil being pushed 
downhill over individuals of H. calycina. The 1995 and 
2003/04 survey notes mentioned that the Mt Echo, Oreico 
and Pyramid ridgeline clumps were found in areas of 
disturbance (Hopkins 1995); the 2017/18 survey made 
similar observations. Whilst plants can be eliminated due 
to track grading (e.g., Pinnacle/Wolfram13 and Pinnacle/ 
Wolfram14, table 1, MW, KH and PAMT pers. obs.) in 
the long term, the present study found that H. calycina 
successfully established in areas where soil disturbance 
from past mining, roading and track creation from timber 
harvesting or general maintenance has created a possible 
seedbed suitable for colonisation (pl. 2). 


Forestry 


Inaddition to fire, H.. calycina populations have been subject 
to other disturbance factors since European settlement. 
While E. sieberi forests were harvested in the 1990s, no 
commercial timber harvesting has taken place where H. 
calycina occurs in more recent times. Unregulated firewood 
collection is undertaken extensively across ridgelines and 
upper slopes in the range of H. calycina, with virtually all 
ridgeline populations of the species dissected by some form 
of track, now used for firewood collecting. 


Long-term monitoring of the threatened lesser guineaflower Hibbertia calycina in Tasmania 69 


Phytophthora 


Phytophthora cinnamomi is a soil-borne plant pathogen 
that attacks the root system of susceptible plants and 
reduces plant health by restricting uptake of water and 
nutrients. Activities such as recreational vehicles and road 
maintenance for fire access have the potential to disturb soil 
and introduce P cinnamomi to populations. In Tasmania, 
P cinnamomi is widely distributed throughout climatically 
suitable areas (see Schahinger et al. 2003, figs 2 and 3) and 
the area known to support H. calycina is potentially able to 
support the pathogen (Podger er al. 1990, Schahinger et al. 
2003). The 1995 survey identified 2 cinnamomi was already 
threatening the viability of clumps of H. calycina (Hopkins 
1995). The 2003/04 survey suspected P cinnamomi infection 
was present at 12 clumps and confirmed on one ridgeline. 
In 2017/18 there were signs of PR cinnamomi infection in 
the area. H. calycina in full sun were observed with leaves 
yellow in colour on plants that appeared otherwise healthy 
while plants in the shade displayed no obvious yellowing 
leaves. On the lower slopes of Mt Echo, H. calycina of 
multiple ages (from seedlings through to plants over 1 m 
tall) were found growing amongst a ‘wave’ of dead/dying 
Xanthorrhoea australis R.Br., which is usually a tell-tale sign 
of P cinnamomi. However, the two tests done in 2017/18 
were both negative for 2 cinnamomi. 

H. calycina is known to be susceptible to P cinnamomi 
because in 1995 live seedlings were found amongst dead 
and dying X. australis at Mt Echo and laboratory tests 
confirmed death of two plants grown from cuttings died 
after 81 days, from infection by P cinnamomi in the roots 
(Barker & Wardlaw 1995). In 2001 P cinnamomi was 
recorded as a ‘sighting’ from Mt Echo. The susceptibility 
of Hibbertia species to P cinnamomi varies enormously 
(Weste & Ashton 1994, Reiter et al. 2004). The sample 
sizes of Barker and Wardlaw (1995) and the present study 
were small meaning the true susceptibility of H. calycina 
to P cinnamomi is uncertain. Given potential for roading 
and illegal firewood cutting to facilitate pathogen spread 
(e.g., Mt Echo, see Barker 1994, Schahinger e¢ al. 2003), 
uncertainty of spread in a changing climate (Commonwealth 
of Australia 2018), and that P cinnamomi is one of two 
plant diseases considered at the forefront of conservation 
concerns in Australia (Burgess et al. 2017, Silcock & 
Fensham 2018), actions to minimise or exclude infection 
tisk by P cinnamomi on H. calycina are warranted until 
larger sample sizes are similarly tested. Sixteen H. calycina 
clumps are found within three Phytophthora Management 
Areas (PMAs) (table 1; Barker er al. 1996, Schahinger et 
al. 2003) where there are restrictions on actions such as 
soil movement (roading) that facilitate pathogen spread. 


Conservation status 


H. calycina was listed on the Tasmanian Threatened Species 
Protection Act 1995, along with over 400 other plant species, 
at the commencement of the Act. For many of these plant 
species, including H. calycina, a guide provided brief 
explanatory information regarding the recommendation 


to add to the Act (Flora Advisory Committee 1994). The 
species listing was supported by expert advice prior to 
Hopkins (1995). This listing is as per criterion 3: vulnerable, 
criterion B, with the following additional criteria applying: 
1: severely fragmented or known to exist at no more than ten 
locations and, criterion 3.c: extreme fluctuations in number 
of locations or subpopulations; and, criterion 3.d: extreme 
fluctuations in number of mature individuals. 

The results of the present paper estimated an extent 
of occurrence of 952 km with an area of occupancy of 
0.43 km2, demonstrating that the current listing of H. 
calycina as vulnerable is narrowly acceptable, qualifying 
under criterion B (extent of occurrence estimated to be 
less than 2,000 km? or area of occupancy estimated to be 
less than 0.5 km?) and additional criteria 1 and 3.c. The 
total population remains relatively small, and restricted, 
and it could be argued that the population is partially 
fragmented and occurring at less than 10 locations, 
meeting criterion Bl. Fluctuations are possible where 
stochastic risk of fire and threatening processes such as P 
cinnamomi are present (criterion 3.c). Our results show 
that populations of H. calycina are not declining (criterion 
B2). The present study recorded over 15,000 individuals 
but did not quantitatively record maturity. Therefore, the 
requirement to meet vulnerable through criterion 3.d. and 
criterion C (a decline in the number of mature individuals 
having a population containing less than 10,000 mature 
individuals) cannot be confirmed. 

With no population decline, and if the majority of 
individuals are considered to be mature, a qualification 
as vulnerable is tenuous and H. calycina would qualify as 
rare under Section 15(4) of the Act where the extent of 
occurrence is less than 80 x 80 km or 2000 km2; the area 
of occupancy is not more than 0.5 km? (50 hectares), with 
risks due to threatening processes such as P cinnamomi 
and fire in a changing climate over the extent of its range. 
It is possible that H. calycina is a species that has always 
been localised and uncommon in Tasmania, with little loss 
of localised, preferred habitat. However, as our estimate 
of individuals did not specifically identify maturity, as a 
precautionary approach we recommended maintaining 
the current vulnerable status until another more thorough 
population estimate noting maturity is undertaken. 

We estimate through the 2017/18 data that over 2,500 
individuals are securely reserved (Scamander Regional 
Reserve [Skyline] and German Town Regional Reserve 
[McIntyres]); a moratorium on production forestry in 
Future Potential Production Forest was lifted in 2019 
(appendix 4). At the time of the first survey in 1995, 
two ridgeline populations were reserved: Skyline and 
Mclntyres West. The remaining ridgelines occurred in 
Special Management Zones open to production forestry 


on public land. Since 1995 no changes to tenure have 


been made (although some changes to reserve managers 
have occurred) with the exception of MclIntyres East, 
where west of the ridgeline is reserved (the greater part of 
the population). Regardless of reservation, the stochastic 
risk of fire cannot be discounted as previously discussed, 
and the Tasmanian Forest Practices system would afford 


70 Perpetua A.M. Turner, Mark Wapstra, Allison Woolley, Katriona Hopkins, Amelia J. Koch and Fred Duncan 


protection should forestry operations be authorised in areas 
which contain any records of the species. 


CONCLUSION 


H. calycina is a species highly tolerant of dry, fire-prone 
environments, appearing to maintain stable population 
sizes in the face of regular fire events and a lack of active 
management. Repeated surveys over time found some 
clumps of plants have gone extinct, likely due to intense 
fires, indicating protection from frequent, intense fires may 
be required. Over time, the number of clumps increased, 
potentially due to greater sampling effort. Whilst H. calycina 
appears to successfully establish on past soil disturbance 
such as road verges affected by grading, roading to facilitate 
fire access has the potential to eliminate the species from 
an area. The susceptibility of the species to infection by P 
cinnamomi requires further investigation; meanwhile current 
Phytophthora management areas provide some protection of 
H.. calycina and associated P cinnamomi susceptible species. 
Elsewhere within the range of this species, applying hygiene 
measures to preventand minimise spread of P cinnamomiand 
minimising road grading should be implemented. Overall, 
current H. calycina populations are stable. As a precaution, 
current threatened species status should be maintained 
until a more thorough assessment of populations, including 
maturity, is undertaken. 


CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 


The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The initial surveys 
by K. Hopkins were financially supported by the Eastern 
Tiers District of Forestry Tasmania (now Sustainable Timber 
Tasmania) with logistical support from staff of the Forest 
Practices Board (now Forest Practices Authority) and Forestry 
Tasmania. Roy Skabo, Stephen Casey, Emily Wapstra, 
James Wapstra and Phil Barker assisted with fieldwork. 
Nita Ramsden at Sustainable Timber Tasmania performed 
the testing for Phytophthora cinnamomi. Alex Buchanan 
(formerly of the Tasmanian Herbarium) provided useful 
discussion on the earlier collections from the 1980s. Staff 
of the Tasmanian Herbarium (Miguel de Salas, Kim Hill) 
provided access to specimens and their database of collection 
information. Hellmut Toelken provided information on 
possible seed dispersal mechanisms and the taxonomicstatus 
of the species. Grant Williamson (University of Tasmania) 
provided fire history. The figures and tables were prepared by 
Perpetua Turner, Anne Chuter, and Sarah Munks commented 
on drafts of the manuscript. We also thank Sally Bryant, 
Mick Brown and Louise Gilfedder for their constructive 
reviews which greatly improved the manuscript. 


REFERENCES 


Atlas of Living Australia 2020: Atlas of Living Australia, www.ala. 
org.au (accessed 4 June 2020). 

Bacon, C.A. 2013: A Tasmanian Mining History Timeline. Tasmanian 
Geological Survey Record 2013/10. Mineral Resources 
Tasmania. Department of Infrastructure, Energy and 
Resources, Hobart. www.mrt.tas.gov.au/mrtdoc/dominfo/ 
download/UR2013_10/UR2013_10.pdf (accessed 7 May 
2019). 

Barker, P.C.J. 1994: Phytophthora cinnamomi: The susceptibility 
and management of selected Tasmanian rare species. Forestry 
Tasmania and Australian Nature Conservation Agency. 


Hobart: 104 pp. 


Barker, P.C.J. & Wardlaw, T.J. 1995: Susceptibility of selected 


Tasmanian rare plants to Phytophthora cinnamomi. 
Australian Journal of Botany 43: 379-386. 

Barker, P.C.J., Wardlaw, T.J. & Brown, M.J. 1996: Selection 
and design of Phytophthora management areas for the 
conservation of threatened flora in Tasmania. Biological 
Conservation 76: 187-193. 

Bell, T.D., Plummer, J.A. & Taylor, S.K. 1993: Seed germination 
ecology in south western, Western Australia. The Botanical 
Review 59: 34-69. 

Bureau of Meteorology 2018: Average annual, seasonal and monthly 
rainfall.’ www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/ 
rainfall/index.jsp and www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_ 
averages/temperature/index.jsp (accessed 10 May 2019). 

Burgess, T.J., Scott, J.K., McDougall, K., Stukely, M.J.C., 
Crane, C., Dunstan, W.A., Brigg, E, Andjic, V., White, 
D., Rudman, T., Arentz, E, Noborum, O. & Hardy, 
G.E.S. 2017: Current and projected global distribution 
of Phytophthora cinnamomi, one of the world’s worst plant 
pathogens. Global Change Biology 23: 1661-1674. 

Burgman, M.A., Keith, D., Hopper, S.D., Widyatmoko, D. & 
Drill, C. 2007: Threat syndromes and conservation of 
the Australian flora. Biological Conservation 134: 73-82. 

Collins, L. 2020: Eucalypt forests dominated by epicormic 
resprouters are resilient to repeated canopy fires. Journal 
of Ecology 108: 310-324. 

Commonwealth of Australia 2015: Threatened Species Strategy. 

~~ Canberra. www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/ 
threatened/publications/threatened-species-strategy 
(accessed 7 May 2019). 

Commonwealth of Australia 2018: Threat abatement plan for disease 
in natural ecosystems caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi. 
www.environment.goy.au/system/files/resources/ee] f3b9f 
6e2e-4a0 1-86f3-Gabb 167fb443/files/tap-phytophthora- 
cinnamomi-2018.pdf (accessed 7 May 2019). 

Craigie, V., Reynolds, D., Walsh, N., Mueck, S., James, E., 
Tonkinson, D. & Rudolph, P. 2018: Spiny rice-flower — 
small, unassuming but with many friends, pp. 43-53. /n 
Garnett, S., Latch, P, Lindenmayer, D. & Woinarski, J. 
(eds): Recovering Australian Threatened Species, CSIRO 
Publishing, Clayton South: 342 pp. 

Crawford, E.C., Ellis, WR. & Stancombe, G.H. 1962: The 
diaries of John Helder Wedge, 1824-1835. Royal Society 
of Tasmania, Hobart: 100 pp. 

DEE (Department of Environment & Energy) 2020: EPBC Act 
List of Threatened Flora. www.environment.goy.au/cgi-bin/ 
sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=flora (accessed 
20 January 2020). 

de Salas, M.E & Baker, M.L. 2019: A Census of the Vascular 
Plants of Tasmania, including Macquarie Island. Tasmanian 
Herbarium, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, 
Hobart: 156 pp. www.tmag.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/ 
pdf_file/0005/179915/2018_Census_of_Tasmanian_ 
Vascular_Plants.pdf (accessed 7 May 2019). 

Dirzo, R. & Raven, PH. 2003: Global state of biodiversity and 
loss. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 28: 137-67. 


Long-term monitoring of the threatened lesser guineaflower Hibbertia calycina in Tasmania - 71 


DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Water and 
Environment) 2000: Threatened Species Strategy for 
Tasmania. Nature Conservation Branch, Department of 
Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart: 30 
pp. https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/ Documents/threatspstrat.pdf 
(accessed 7 May 2019). 

Fairman, T.A., Nitschke, C.R. & Bennett, L.T. 2016: Too much, 
too soon? A review of the effects of increasing wildfire 
frequency on tree mortality and regeneration in temperate 
eucalypt forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire 25: 
831-848. 

Flora Advisory Committee 1994: Native higher plant taxa which 
are rare or threatened in Tasmania. Edition 1 Species at 
Risk, Tasmania. Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania, 
Hobart: 23 pp. 

Grant, J., Laffan, M., Hill, R. & Neilsen, W. 1995: Forest Soils 
of Tasmania. Forestry Tasmania, Hobart: 189 pp. 
Harden, G.J. & Everett, J. 1990: Dilleniaceae. 293-303, In 
Harden, G.J. (ed): Flora of New South Wales. University of 

New South Wales Press Ltd, Sydney: 574 pp- 

Hopkins, K. 1995: The Distribution of Hibbertia calycina 
(Guinea Flower) in the St Helens — Scamander Area. 
Report to the Eastern Tiers District. Forestry Tasmania: 

.. Hobart: 44 pp. 

Kitchener, A. & Harris, S. 2013: From Forest to Fjaeldmark: 
Descriptions of Tasmania’ Vegetation. Edition 2. Department 
of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, 
Tasmania: 24 pp. 

Legge, S., Lindenmayer, D., Robinson, N., Schelle, B., Southwell, 
D. & Wintle, B. 2018: Monitoring threatened species and 
ecological communities. CSIRO Publishing, Australia: 
480 pp. 

Neyland, M. & Askey-Doran, M. 1996: Effects of repeated 
fires on dry sclerophyll (£ sieberi) forests in northeast 
Tasmania. Records of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art 
Gallery 103: 47-50. 

Podger, ED., Mummery, D.C., Palzer, C.R. & Brown, M.J. 
1990: Bioclimatic analysis of the distribution of damage 
to native plants in Tasmania by Phytophthora cinnamomi. 
Australian Journal of Ecology 15: 281-289. 

Pyrke, A.F. & Marsden-Smedley, J.B. 2005: Fire-attributes 
categories, fire sensitivity, and flammability of Tasmanian 
vegetation communities. Tasforests 16: 35-46. oS 

R Core Team. 2019: R: A language and environment jor statistical 
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 
Austria. www.R-project.org/. ee 

Reiter, N., Weste, G. & Guest, D. 2004: The risk of extinction 
resulting from disease caused by Phytophthora cinnamom! 
to endangered, vulnerable or rare plant species endemic 
to the Grampians, western Victoria. Australian Journal of 


Botany 52: 425-433. 


Ribeiro O.K. 1978: A source book of the genus Phytophthora. 
Strauss and Cramer, Vaduz, Germany: 417 pp. 

Schahinger, R., Rudman, T. & Wardlaw, T.J. 2003: Conservation 
of Tasmanian plant species and communities threatened by 
Phytophthora cinnamomi. Strategic Regional Plan for 
Tasmania Technical Report 03/03. Nature Conservation 
Branch, Department of Primary Industries, Water 
and Environment: Hobart. https://dpipwe.tas.gov. 
au/Documents/Conservation-of-Tas-Plant-Species- 

 Threatened-by-Phytophthora.pdf (accessed 7 May 2019). 

Schatral, A., Osborne, J.M. & Fox, J.E.D. 1997: Dormancy in 

seeds of Hibbertia cuneiformis and H. huegelii (Dilleniaceae). 
_ Australian Journal of Botany 45: 1045-1053. 

Silcock, J.L. & Fensham, RJ. 2018: Using evidence of decline 
and extinction risk to identify priority regions, habitats 
and threats for plant conservation in Australia. Australian 
Journal of Botany 66: 541-555. 

Tasmanian Government 2017: LIS Tinap - Land Information System 
of Tasmania, Tasmanian Government: Hobart: http:// 
maps.thelist.tas.gov.au/listmap/app/list/map (accessed 7 
May 2019). 

Threatened Species Section 2020: Mirbelia oxylobioides (sandstone 
bushpea): Species Management Profile for Tasmania's 
Threatened Species Link. www.threatenedspecieslink.tas. 
gov.au/Pages/Mirbelia-oxylobioides.aspx. Department 
of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, 
Tasmania (accessed 10 October 2020). 

Toelken, H.R. 1996: Hibbertia. In Walsh, N.G. & Entwisle, T’J. 
(eds): Flora of Victoria Volume 3 Dicotyledons Winteraceae 
to Myrtaceae. Inkata Press, Melbourne: 300-313. hetps:// 
vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au/flora/key/2245 

Tolsma, A., Brown, G. & Cheal, D. 2010: The likely impacts 
of prescribed fire on the flora and fauna of box-ironbark 
‘remnants. Transactions of the Royal Society of Victoria 122: 
Ixxxv—xc. 

Weste, G. & Ashton, D.H. 1994: Regeneration and survival 
of indigenous dry sclerophyll species in the Brisbane 
Ranges, Victoria, after a Phytophthora cinnamomi epidemic. 
Australian Journal of Botany 42: 239-253. 

Wickham, H. 2016: ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. 
Springer-Verlag, New York: 216 pp. 

Wickham, H., Francois, R., Henry, L. & Miiller, K. 2020: dplyr: 
A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 1.0.0. 
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr 


(accepted 12 October 2020) 


72 Perpetua A.M. Turner, Mark Wapstra, Allison Woolley, Katriona Hopkins, Amelia J. Koch and Fred Duncan 


APPENDIX 1 


History of Hibbertia calycina collections in 
Tasmania 


Background 

Hibbertia Andrews is a genus of more than 170 species, 
distributed mainly in Australia and extending to New Guinea, 
Madagascar and some Pacific islands (APNI 2019). The 
number of species recognised in Tasmania has been somewhat 
fluid, especially in recent years as the taxonomy of some of 
the species complexes of southeastern Australia are resolved 
(e.g., Toelken 1998, 2000, 2013). Tasmania currently has 
eighteen accepted species of Hibbertia (de Salas & Baker 
2019). One species, H.. basaltica, is recognised as endemic to 
the state (Buchanan & Schahinger 2000). Some of the non- 
endemic species have localised distributions in Tasmania. In 
Tasmania, they include H. calycina (DC.) N.A.Wakef. (de 
Salas & Baker 2019), which also occurs in Victoria (Willis 
1972, Toelken 1996), New South Wales (Harden & Everett 
1990), and the Australian Capital Territory (Burbidge & 
Gray 1970). The recognition in other state floras that ‘77. 
calycind also occurred in Tasmania is a relatively recent 
development. For example, Toelken (1996) in the Flora of 
Victoria’s treatment of Hibbertia did notattribute the species 
to Tasmania, although the current online version now does. 


In Tasmania 

Hibbertia calycina (plate 1 in the main article) was not 
included in The Student’ Flora of Tasmania Part I (Curtis & 
Morris 1975), since the Tasmanian Herbarium did not hold 
any specimens attributable to the species until the early 1980s. 
That sucha distinctive species was apparently overlooked (or 
at least not collected) for close to two centuries of European 
occupation is somewhat surprising, especially given focus on 
the flora of the greater St Helens region in the late 1800s. 
In 1892 Fitzgerald collected H. rufa N.A.Wakef. from the 
area; this species was not recorded again until 2008, when 
it was found to be localised but often abundant (Wapstra 
et al. 2011) in heathland north of St Helens. Elsewhere, 
two species of Hibbertia, both distributed around Sydney, 
also went overlooked, despite 200 years of occupation: H. 
spanantha Toelken & A.F.Rob. is a newly-described species 
known from three populations totalling 20 plants and listed 
as Critically Endangered (New South Wales Threatened 
Species Conservation Act 1995, Toelken & Robinson 2015); 
H. fumana Sieber ex Toelken has been recently rediscovered: 
with a population of 370 plants it is provisionally listed as 
Critically Endangered (New South Wales Threatened Species 
Conservation Act 1995, Duretto et al. 2017). 

Prior to the recent submission of a batch of voucher 
specimens from surveys conducted in 2003/2004 (MW), 
the Tasmanian Herbarium only held eight sheets of 
Hibbertia calycina, the earliest from 9 Oct. 1980, three 
from 15 Jun. 1981, one from 8 Aug. 1981, and one each 
from 19 Oct. 1993, 6 Apr. 1995 and 20 Sep. 1999. The 
specimens from 1981 were originally labelled “Hibbertia 
2cistiflora”, presumably reflecting the use of a mainland 
flora to identify the specimens (A. Buchanan pers. comm.), 


but all subsequent specimens were labelled as ‘Hibbertia 
calycina. The Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery 
(QVMAG) also holds five collections of the taxon, two 
of which are apparent duplicates (both labelled “Upper 
Scamander Pitts Hill”, dated 9 Oct. 1980, and attributed 
to Mary Cameron), these probably being duplicates of 
the specimen held at the Tasmanian Herbarium with the 
same date and location. Of note is that these specimens are 
labelled “first recording for Tasmania”. Other collections 
held at QVMAG include two from 20 Aug. 1981, attributed 
to “Forestry Officers” and one from 29 Sep. 1987 (also a 


- Mary Cameron collection). 


References 

APNI (Australian Plant Name Index) 2019: IBIS database, Centre 
for Australian National Biodiversity Research, Australian 
Government, Canberra. www.cpbr.gov.au/cgi-bin/apni 
(accessed 7 May 2019). 

Buchanan, A.M. & Schahinger, R.B. 2005: A new endemic species 
of Hibbertia (Dilleniaceae) from Tasmania. Muelleria 22: 
105-109. 

Burbidge, N.T. & Gray, M. 1970: Flora of the Australian Capital 
Territory. Australian National University Press, Canberra: 
447 pp. 

Curtis, W.M. & Morris, D.I. 1975: The Student’ Flora of Tasmania 
Part 1 Gymnospermae, Angiospermae: Ranunculaceae to 
Myrtaceae (Second Edition, 1981 Reprint). Government 
Printer, Hobart: 240 pp. 

de Salas, M.E & Baker, M.L. 2019: A Census of the Vascular 
Plants of Tasmania, including Macquarie Island. Tasmanian 
Herbarium, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, 
Hobart: 156 pp. www.tmag.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/ 
pdf_file/0005/179915/2018_Census_of_Tasmanian_ 
Vascular_Plants.pdf (accessed 7 May 2019). 

Duretto, M.E, Orme, A.E, Rodd, J., Stables, M. & Toelken, H. 
2017: Hibbertia fumana (Dilleniaceae), a species presumed 
to be extinct rediscovered in the Sydney region, Australia. 
Telopea 20: 143-146. 

Harden, G.J. & Everett, J. 1990: Dilleniaceae. Jn Harden, G.]J. 
(ed.): Flora of New South Wales. University of New South 
Wales Press Ltd: Sydney: 293-303. https://profiles.ala.org. 
au/opus/foa/profile/Dilleniaceae : 

Toelken, H.R. 1996: Hibbertia. In Walsh, N.G. & Entwisle, T.J. 
(eds): Flora of Victoria Volume 3 Dicotyledons Winteraceae 
to Myrtaceae. Inkata Press, Melbourne: 300-313. hetps:// 
viclora.rbg.vic.gov.au/flora/key/2245 

Toelken, H.R. 1998: Notes on Hibbertia (Dilleniaceae) 2. The 
H aspera-H empetrifolia complex. Journal of the Adelaide 
Botanic Gardens 18(2): 107-160. 

Toelken, H.R. 2000: Notes on Hibbertia (Dilleniaceae) 3. H 
sericea and associated species. Journal of the Adelaide Botanic 
Gardens 19: 1-54. 

Toelken, H.R. 2013: Notes on Hibbertia subg Hemistemma 
(Dilleniaceae) 9. The eastern Australian H vestita group, 
including H pedunculata and H serpyllifolia. Journal of the 
Adelaide Botanic Gardens 26: 31-69. 

Toelken, H.R: & Robinson, A.K 2015: Notes on Hibbertia 
(Dilleniaceae) 11. Hibbertia spanantha, a new species 
from the central coast of New South Wales. Journal of the 
Adelaide Botanic Gardens 29: 11-14. 

Wapstra, M., French, B., Tyquin, V. & Skabo, R. 2011: From 
presumed extinct to probably secure? The resurrection 
and ongoing management of Hibbertia rufa (brown 
guineaflower) in north-east Tasmania. 7asforests 19: 54-70. 

Willis, J.H. 1972: A Handbook to Plants in Victoria, Volume II, 
Dicotyledons. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne: 832. 


Long-term monitoring of the threatened lesser guineaflower Hibbertia calycina in Tasmania - 73 
APPENDIX 2 
Clumps of Hibbertia calycina in northeastern Tasmania. 


Clump numbers for 2017/18 and 1995 surveys are shown. (a) Mt Echo, (b) Loila Pinnacle/Wolfram, (c) Pyramid, (d) 
Oreico, (e) Skyline, (f) McIntyres East and McIntyres West, (g) Bolpeys, (h) Flagstaff, (i) Basin Creek. Inset: Map of 


Tasmania showing position of all clumps. 


5424000 


7 
LL YD 


(JT \ Sr 
4 PGES AN 
= 4 “Z7> ~~ —~ A 

DS ey « 


5423000 


Vehicular Track 
= — — Access Road 


Watercourse 
H Riparian stream order 


; 
vaats 
Rt? (Ri 
‘ : —— WJ 788, SDK, amity nile 
\ a Yi LA SIRT ASST 77 


Va Ns oA Wee 0.25 05 1 \ 
PNCN (~~ 8 \ (Ve a Kilometres | |. 


74 Perpetua A.M. Turner, Mark Wapstra, Allison Woolley, Katriona Hopkins, Amelia J. Koch and Fred Duncan 


APPENDIX 2 — cont. 


Legend 


1995 

| Fitzgerald Creek 
(77 Loila Pinnacle 
(2 Wolfram Creek 
2017-2018 


Watercourse 
Riparian stream order 
—— Class 4 


VZZ Trout Road 
2017-2018 


= = = Feeder Road 
= — — Access Road 


Riparian stream order 

—— Class 4 

—— Class 3 

name Class 2 ily Greek /\ et \ irae — / & von 

quem Class 1 ; 060.1253510.25 0. : ( pee \ 

| ——~ Contour (m) a) ————==_ ] \ . ZC) 
601000 


600000 


= 


75 


Long-term monitoring of the threatened lesser guineaflower Hibbertia calycina in Tasmania” 


= = = Feeder Road 
— — — Access Road 


APPENDIX 2 — cont. 


Riparian stream order 


Watercourse 


000SL¢S 


Riparian stream order 


EE) meta-population boundary 


Watercourse 


Legend 
1995 
2017-2018 

~| EEE siyline 
—— Vehicular Track 
= = = Feeder Road 
- — — Access Road 
~————- Contour (m) 


AIZZZ sie 


~~ Contour (m) 
‘\ Road type 


ao 
35 
2 
oO 
E 
Ss 
g 


604000 


603000 


602000 


76 Perpetua A.M. Turner, Mark Wapstra, Allison Woolley, Katriona Hopkins, Amelia J. Koch and Fred Duncan 


APPENDIX 2 — cont. 


> tN a A 
— 0 0.1250.25 0.5 Kaas 
v == Kilometres 
por ai 


~ 


) 


NV. 
¢ — 


WE 7/. 
SS 
‘ ica 
ee \ *. 
* 


ky 
Watercourse 
Riparian stream order 
(| —— Class 4 
—— Class 3 
<n Class 2 


i ) ummm Class 1 
l4 ~~ Contour (m) 
PSN Ne ARN ee 
Pe RNS, NS TNS Fo ao 


} oo See We 
be pf 


Zl 
——_— 
— aia N\A 
pe \ EY kanes 0 gS *% 
CS artncscaelteal : - er y/) i 
= Bpe fs Kilometres 
= (( URS a, hssilichend Fo 


yo ZL 


Long-term monitoring of the threatened lesser guineaflower Hibbertia calycina in Tasmania - 


APPENDIX 2 — cont. 


ante 


0.125 0.25 
iN 


lags 


7 


pe es 00,4258 0,25, 
Vaca \ 


CEL 


Wf 


78 Perpetua A.M. Turner, Mark Wapstra, Allison Woolley, Katriona Hopkins, Amelia J. Koch and Fred Duncan 


APPENDIX 3 


Mean height of H. calycina (cm) (+ 95% CI), from a random subset of clumps during the 2017/2018 survey, plotted 
against the most recent fire event (year). Clumps were selected based on 1995 survey clump numbers; labels are the 


2017/2018 clump number. See Appendix 4 for details. 


50 
45 
40 Clump 
5 Hl Mt Echo 2 
so} 
aS OO MtEcho 3 
iS & Loila Pinnacle/Wolfram 6-8 
8 EY Loila Pinnacle/Wolfram 10 
x 30 A Loila Pinnacle/Wolfram 15-17 
fo} 
2 FA Pyramid 23-29 
a &) Pyramid 30 
= 25 @ Oreico 31 
© 3 Skyline 35 
= 
XX Mcintyres 37 


nN 
o 


15 


2014 


2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 
Most recent fire (year) 


Long-term monitoring of the threatened lesser guineaflower Hibbertia calycina in Tasmania 79 


APPENDIX 4 


Environmental and historical information for clumps of Hibbertia calycina in northeastern Tasmania. 


RIDGELINE 
Tenure: 1995 and Clump no Clump location Landform Fire events Aspect Elevation 
2018 1995 2017/2018 2017/2018 (month/year) ey 
Mt Echo 16,17,18 1 Mt Echo ridgeline road and _ ridge an 1985-87 (frb), E,NE, 130-200 
1995: State Forest northeast above Nephele mid-slope 10/1994 (wild), N, NW 
(production). Creek < 10/2008 (frb), 
2018: Future 10/2012 (frb) 
Potential Production 15 2 Mt Echo, northeast ridge and 11/2003 (unk), N,NE 100-190 
Forest catchment of Constable mid-slope 10/2008 (frb) 
Creek 
19 3) Mt Echo, northwest ridge ridge and 10/2008 (frb), NW 220-280 
mid-slope 10/2012 (frb) 
19 4 Mt Echo, east of northwest ridge and 10/2008 (frb) NE 200-260 
ridge mid-slope 
Loila Pinnacle/ 23 5 Loila Pinnacle ridge 1987-88 (unk), W,NW 280-350 
Wolfram 10/2011 (frb) 
1995: State Forest 22 6 Loila Pinnacle ridge 1987-88 (unk), W,NW 310-370 
(production). 10/2011 (frb) 
328) 
eae se 22 7,8 Loila Pinnacle ridge 1987-88 (unk), N 370 
F 10/2011 (frb) 
orest 
24 9 Immediately west of Loila hilltop 10/2011 (frb) N 340-350 
Track (headwaters of 
Fitzgerald Creek) 
26 10 Immediately west of Loila hilltop 10/2011 (frb) W,NW 320-350 
Track (headwaters of 
Fitzgerald Creek) 
25 11 Ridge west of Loila Track hilltop 10/2011 (frb) NW,W 270-320 
(catchment of Fitzgerald 
Creek) 
25 12 Ridge west of Loila Track hilltop 10/2011 (frb) N 190-300 
(catchment of Fitzgerald 
Creek) 
21 13 Northeast of junction of ridge and 10/2011 (frb) WwW 250-260 
Loila Track and Wolfram mid-slope 
Creek Track : 
20 14 North of junction of Loila ridgeand 10/2011 (frb) Ww 240-250 
Track and Wolfram Creek mid-slope 
Track 
27 15 ‘north of Wolfram Creek tridgeand 1987-88 (unk), N 120-150 
Track, catchment of mid-upper 10/2011 (frb) 
Fitzgerald Creek slope 
27 16 north of Wolfram Creek ridge and 1987-88 (unk), . W 130-170 
Track, catchment of mid-upper 10/2011 (frb) 
Fitzgerald Creek slope 
Di 17 north of Wolfram Creek ridgeand 1987-88 (unk), W 160-170 
Track, catchment of mid-upper 10/2011 (frb) 


Fitzgerald Creek slope 


80 Perpetua A.M. Turner, Mark Wapstra, Allison Woolley, Katriona Hopkins, Amelia J. Koch and Fred Duncan 


APPENDIX 4 — cont. 


Tenure: 1995 and Clump no Clump location Landform Fire events Aspect Elevation 
Avbs 1995 2017/2018 2017/2018 (month/year) (m) 
Pyramid NA 18 southwest of Pyramid Track, _ hilltop/ 1984-85 (frb), W 140-170 
1995: State Forest catchment of Kelly Creek sides of 10/2011 (frb) 
(production). slope 
201 STE ucure 30 19 Pyramid Hill (continuation _hilltop/ —-:10/2011 (fb) NW 180 
Potential Production of ridge to northwest of main _ sides of 
Eorest hill) slope 
30 20 Pyramid Hill (continuation _hilltop/ 10/2011 (frb) NW 190 
of ridge to northwest of main _ sides of 
hill) slope 
30 21 Pyramid Hill (continuation _hilltop/ 10/2011 (frb) W 170-190 
of ridge to northwest of main _ sides of 
hill) slope 
29 22 Pyramid Hill (continuation _hilltop/ 10/2011 (frb) NW 170-190 
of ridge to northwest of main sides of 
hill) slope 
28 23 Pyramid Hill hilltop/ 10/2011 (frb) W 200-220 
: sides of 
slope 
28 24 Pyramid Hill hilltop/ 10/2011 (frb) N 210 
sides of 
slope 
28 25 Pyramid Hill hilltop/ 10/2011 (frb) W 210 
sides of 
slope 
32 26,27 Pyramid Track, east of ridge 10/2011 (frb) N 140 
Pyramid Hill, just west of 
junction with Eastern Creek 
Road 
32 28, 29 Pyramid Track, east of . ridge 10/2011 (frb) N 130 
Pyramid Hill, just west of 
junction with Eastern Creek 
Road 
31 30 Trout Road, northwest of ridge 1983 (unk), NW, 120-210 
Pitts Hill 08/2006 (frb; SW 
: northeast side of 
road only) 
Oreico 35 31 northwest of Orieco Hill, ridge 1984-85 NW, 180-240 
1995: State Forest southwest of Orieco Road, (unk), 10/2011 SW 
(production). catchment of Eastern Creek (frb) (extinct 
2018: Future northeast 
-Potential Production population [No 
Forest 36 in 1995] was 
last burnt in 
10/2012 (frb)) 
36 extinct — Orieco Hill, mid-upper NE 110-130 
slope 
34 32 Orieco Hill, Oreico Hill top, ridge 10/2011 (frb) W,SW 100-230 
Oreico Hill south east 
33 33 Orieco Hill, Oreico Hill top, ridge 10/2011 (frb) W,SW 160-210 
Oreico Hill south east 
33 34 Orieco Hill, Oreico Hill top, ridge 10/2011 (frb) W,S 190-200 


Oreico Hill south east 


APPENDIX 4 — cont. 


Tenure: 1995 and 
2018 


Long-term monitoring of the threatened lesser guineaflower Hibbertia calycina in Tasmania’ 81 


Clump no 


Clump location 


1995 


2017/2018 


2017/2018 


Landform 


Fire events Aspect Elevation 


(month/year) (m) 


Skyline 

1995: Scamander 
Forest Reserve 
(transferred to Parks 
and Wildlife Service 
from Forestry 
Tasmania). 

2018: Scamander 
Regional Reserve 


MclIntyres (East) 
1995: State Forest 
(production) 

2018: Ridgeline 

is the boundary 
between Future 
Potential Production 
Forest (east of 

tidge so the smaller 
part of the sub- 
population) and 
the German Town 
Regional Reserve 
(west of the ridge so 
the greater part of 
the population) 


ay/ 


38 


39, 40, 
41 


35 


36 


a¥/ 


Skyline Tier (near southern 
end and far southern end) 


ridge 


Skyline Tier (near southern ° 
end and far southern end) 


ridge 


McIntyres Ridge (East) ridge and 


steep sides 


10/1993 (cool 
burn), 12/2006 
(esc) 

10/1993 (cool 
burn), 12/2006 
(esc) 


W, NW 170-180 


W, NW 160-170 


12/2006 (esc) W, NW 150-200 


McIntyres (West) 
1995: German 
Town Forest Reserve 
(transferred to Parks 
and Wildlife Service 
from Forestry 
Tasmania) 

2018: German 
Town Regional 
Reserve 

Bolpeys 

1995: State Forest 
(production) 

2018: Permanent 
Timber Production 


Zone land 


42, 43, 
44 


45, 46, 
47 


38 


39 


McIntyres Ridge (West) ridge and 


steep sides 


between Bolpeys Ridge and 
Catos Road (catchment of 
Wattle Creek) 


ridge 


1976-77 
(unk; dated 
from Banksia 
regrowth), 
12/2006 (esc) 


NW,N_ 160-290 


12/2006 (esc) W, NW 140-180 


Flagstaff 

1995: State Forest 
(production) 

2018: Future 
Potential Production 
Forest 


Basin Creek 


1995: State Forest 
(production) 

2018: Future 
Potential Production 
Forest 


Clump numbers for 2017/18 and 1995 surveys are shown (wild: wildfire; esc: escaped burn; frb: fuel reduction burn; acc: accidentally 


lit; unk: unknown ignition). 


40 


41 


‘Boggy Creek c. 500 m ENE 


between Flagstaff Track and 


slope 
Flagstaff Lookout 


north of Loila Tier Road 
above Basin Creek 


ridge 


mid-upper 


2003/2004, =~ NE 
2017 (acc) 


140-200 


05/2012 (frb) N, NE 350-360 


82 Perpetua A.M. Turner, Mark Wapstra, Allison Woolley, Katriona Hopkins, Amelia J. Koch and Fred Duncan 


APPENDIX 5 
Hibbertia calycina height and fire 


The assumption of homogeneity of variances for mean plant height per sub-population using 2017/2018 data only was 
examined using Levenes test and the difference between the mean heights of plants for each of ten clumps was tested 
using Welch’s One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Rather than minimum and maximum, we used 95% confidence 
intervals to remove the influence of outliers (Walshe et al. 2007) except where otherwise indicated and standard error is 
used. Analyses were performed using R (package agricolae version 1.3-0, de Mendiburu 2019; package userfriendlyscience 
version 0.7.2, Peters (2018); R Core Team (2019)). 

Mean plant height (+ 95% confidence interval) recorded from a random subset of clumps during the 2017/2018 
survey. See table 1 for clump data. One-way ANOVA was used to compare mean plant height and Tukey’s test used 
to denote different means (denoted by letters A-G). All plants: F = 28.27 (df = 9), p <0.0001; F (Welch’s ANOVA) 


= 52.04 (df = 9), p <0.0001. 


Variable Skyline Mt Mt Loila Loila Loila Pyramid Pyramid Oreico Skyline McIntyres 

35 Echo2 Echo3 Pinnacle/ Pinnacle/  Pinnacle/ 23-29 30 31 35 37 

Wolfram Wolfram Wolfram 
6-8 10 15-17 

Number of 186 299 252 160 75 137 148 103 126 186 182 
individuals 
Mean 16.32F 28.46DE 24.83E 33.39CD 29.51CDE 31.77CD 41.02AB 43.37A 32.10CD 16.32F 35.08BC 
height re219 5) ete teo) Oe raley, Dees ct o10 7, + 4.04 + 3.34 3102) 419 et S345 e285) 8+ 2'85 
(cm) + se 
Minimum 1 pD 2 2 2 1 5 4 2, 1 4 
height 
(cm) 
Maximum 54 120 70 82 83 81 99 133 76 54 134 
height 
(cm) 


There was a difference in clump mean plant height (F = 28.27, df= 9, p <0.0001). Pairwise comparisons found the mean 
plant height from Skyline35 was significantly different from all other clumps where height was recorded. Pyramid30 
recorded the greatest mean plant height (mean = 43.37 + 2.11 cm), similar only to nearby Pyramid 23-29 clumps). Time 
since the most recent fire appears to not influence the mean height of H. calycina plants (appendix 3). Pyramid30 and 
McIntyres37 ridgeline clumps recorded the high mean height of plants and longest time since fire. A clump from Skyline 
recorded the same time since fire and lowest mean height of plants. 


References 
de Mendiburu, EF. 2019: agricolae: Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. R package version 1.3-0. https://CRAN.R-project. 


org/package=agricolae. 
Peters, G. 2018: userfriendlyscience: Quantitative analysis made accessible_. doi: 10.17605/osf.io/txequ (https://doi.org/10.17605/osf. 


io/txequ), R package version 0.7.2, (https://userfriendlyscience.com). 
R Core Team 2019: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 


www.R-project.org/. 
Walshe, T., Wintle, B., Fidler, E & Burgman, M. 2007: Use of confidence intervals to demonstrate performance against forest 


management standards. Forest Ecology & Management 247: 237-245. 


Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 154, 2020 83 


OVERVIEW OF TASMANIA’S OFFSHORE ISLANDS 
AND THEIR ROLE IN NATURE CONSERVATION 


by Sally L. Bryant and Stephen Harris 
(with one text-figure, two tables, eight plates and two appendices) 


Bryant, S.L. & Harris, S. 2020 (9:xii): Overview of Tasmania's offshore islands and their role in nature conservation. Papers and Proceedings 
of the Royal Society of Tasmania 154: 83-106. ISSN: 0080-4703. Tasmanian Land Conservancy, PO Box 2112, Lower Sandy Bay, 
Tasmania 7005, Australia (SLB*); Department of Archaeology and Natural History, College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian 
National University, Canberra, ACT 2601 (SH). *Author for correspondence: Email: sally.bryant181@outlook.com 


Since the 1970s, knowledge of Tasmania’s offshore islands has expanded greatly due to an increase in systematic and regional surveys, 
the continuation of several long-term monitoring programs and the improved delivery of pest management and translocation programs. 
However, many islands remain data-poor especially for invertebrate fauna, and non-vascular flora, and information sources are dispersed 
across numerous platforms. While more than 90% of Tasmania’s offshore islands are statutory reserves, many are impacted by a range 
of disturbances, particularly invasive species with no decision-making framework in place to prioritise their management. This paper 
synthesises the significant contribution offshore islands make to Tasmania’s land-based natural assets and identifies gaps and deficiencies 
hampering their protection. A continuing focus on detailed gap-filling surveys aided by partnership restoration programs and collaborative 


national forums must be strengthened if we are to capitalise on the conservation benefits islands provide in the face of rapidly changing 


environmental conditions and pressure for future use. 


Key Words: Tasmanian islands, island conservation, island endemics, invasive species. 


INTRODUCTION 


Tasmaniaasa place is defined by islands: physically, culturally 
and ecologically. The enduring connection of Tasmania's 
Aboriginal people to offshore islands remains integral to 
their culture, and physical evidence of their occupation is 
found in cave sites, middens and artefacts,-little of which has 
been documented. Many islands were named by the French 
during early scientific expeditions and are the type locations 
for plantand animal specimens sent back to the museums of 
Europe (examples in Bryant 2014, Harris 2014). Biologically, 
Tasmania’s offshore islands contain sites of unique habitats, 
and in a context of uncertain environmental change, have 
become threatened species arks and refugia for species that 
are declining elsewhere (Moro e¢ a/. 2018). Islands through 
their limited size and isolation are the windows to evolution 
and are recognised globally for the role they play in conserving 
nature (Secretariat of the Convention of Biodiversity 2014). 
The interconnection between land and water is fundamental 
to island ecologies; for example, the nutriént-rich run-off 
from seabird and seal islands is an important driver for 
surrounding marine ecosystems and even phenomena such 
as ‘Ashmole’s halo’ can regulate the population dynamics 
of seabird colonies through food depletion cycles (Gaston 
et al. 2007). The terrestrial biodiversity on islands is also 
supported by factors such as windthrown drifts ofalgal wrack 
and from products of nesting seabirds (Polis & Hurd 1996), 


which can often be important for islands with low primary ° 


productivity (Harris & McKenny 1999). However, while 
we recognise the intrinsic link between island landmass and 
sea, an analysis of marine systems is beyond the scope of 
this paper. Instead, we provide a land-based perspective and 
draw on selected historical and contemporary information 


to highlight the importance of Tasmania's offshore islands 
to nature conservation and recommend measures needed 
if their values are to survive in the future. 

Since the 1970s our knowledge of Tasmania's offshore 
islands has expanded greatly. This has been due to the island 
field surveys attributable to biologists in the founding years 
of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, new sources of 
funding, more recent surveys and better access to island 
information. Iwo key works, one by Brothers et al. (2001) 
providing information on 280 islands and the second by 
Harris et al. (2001) on the flora of 100 islands of the outer 
Furneaux Group resulted from extensive fieldwork from 
the 1980s. Systematic surveys of heathlands, saltmarshes, 
eucalypt forests and wetlands included investigation of 
these biomes on the larger offshore islands (for example, 
Kirkpatrick & Harwood 1983). Knowledge of islands 
has continued to be supplemented through work under 
the Hamish Saunders Memorial Program (24 islands 
surveyed) and islands surveyed in anticipation of oil spill 
response (13 islands) (reports available DPIPWE Nature 
Conservation Report Series) and land management updates 
by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (http://tacinc.com.au/ 
programs/land-management/). 

To compile this overview, we used information from the 
sources mentioned and a range of institutional databases, 
geospatial systems, web inventories, the scientific literature 
and the authors’ professional experience. Tasmania's reserve 
management plans contain topographical maps, title 
boundaries, lists of species, history of disturbances and 
management regulations (http://www.parks.tas.gov.au), with 
many older plans also summarising widely scattered reports 
such as those of early field naturalists’ visits. Tasmania's 
State of the Environment Reports were used as sequenced 
documents for changes in coastal and marine habitats but 


84 Sally L. Bryant and Stephen Harris 


these have not been updated for some time and not all are 
publicly available (RPDC 2006, TPC 2009). 

Useful public databases include the systematic inventory 
of Tasmania’s islands on the ‘Islandshare’ web portal (www. 
islandshare.net/), developed in 2012 by the Wildcare Friends 
of the Bass Strait Islands, Tasmanian Conservation Trust 
and Birdlife Tasmania and the Tasmanian Government's 
Natural Values Atlas (www.naturalvaluesatlas.tas.gov.au) 
which includes the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database, 
although this information is not island-specific. 


INVENTORY AND TENURE 


Mainland Tasmania has 5890 islands, islets, rock stacks and 
reefs located in the sea situated above the mean highwater 
mark (TASMAP 2006), not all of which are named. Of 
these, over 330 islands are greater than one hectare in size, 
65 are greater than 20 hectares in size and Flinders Island 
(1340.4 km?) and King Island (1093.9 km2) are Australia’s 
sixth and seventh largest islands. Tasmania’s offshore 
islands are scattered around its entire coast, many occur in 
groups or clusters with the highest densities found in the 


Bass Strait region especially the Furneaux area (fig. 1). On 
Tasmania's northern border, Rodondo Island is less than 
10 km from the Victorian coast with the border running 
through Boundary Islet in the Hogan Group. To the south 
of Tasmania, Pedra Branca and Eddystone Rock lie 27 km 
from South East Cape and are the southernmost exposed 
land on Australia’s continental shelf. A further 1,500 km to 
the south is subantarctic Macquarie Island which became 
part of Tasmania’ territorial jurisdiction during the Van 
Diemen’s Land proclamation in 1825. 

Few of Tasmania’s offshore islands are permanently 
settled. The larger King, Flinders, truwana-Cape Barren and 
Bruny islands have established population centres and some 
others, for example, Maria, Macquarie, Deal, Maatsuyker, 
Robbins, Three Hummock, Swan and lungtalanana-Clarke 
islands have staffed field stations, private houses or visitor 
accommodation. Many islands, however, retain a range of 
infrastructure such as lighthouses (pl. 1), airstrips, fences, 
tracks, homesteads and huts, reflecting current or past use 
and are visited for a variety of purposes. 

From the 1970s onwards Tasmania’s offshore islands were 
systematically reviewed for statutory protection. Maria, 
Schouten, Tasman, South Bruny and the Kent Group of 


LN 
pe 
hctod 


Craggy Island <>" 


Little Island ~ *, 


u Bos Ko, 
Roydon Island.) me we F 
re 


Middle Pasco Islands’, 
| South Pasco Island 
Pasco Group BAY 


Island 


#Ann Islet 
‘Entrance Rock * 


Chappell ,, 


Islands mapoell 


Little Goose Island 
Goose island, 


a 


Boosie Inland 


Group 


Outer Sister Island © 


Meee, ae a _Inner Sister Island | A 


Killiecrg, kis - Y j | % 
‘2 f ‘ 


inders 


\ 5 Whitemark 


East epee tad yee Green 


er Bay) 
Trousers Pt ie 


so iA SOUND til es dl 
tt BE rn 
{ Badger Island 
Doughboy sland ~~, 


\ Babel 


Island 


N 


S po Boil Pt | 
coe eid tel Sand 


Lad ly Barend 


{ ¢ “_ Serna boa eee 
we rr rae “ard Bri 
RVansittart 


sland 
ee cain Kettle eldand Gea ean san 
Rm Island y 


paw 


_Deep Bay } ea lf \ 


FIGURE 1 — Flinders Island showing density of surrounding islands. 


Overview of Tasmania’ offshore islands and their role in nature conservation 85 


PLATE 1 — Maatsuyker Island 
showing lighthouse station and the 
Needle Rocks offshore. 


islands, were all incorporated into the boundary of existing 
national parks whereas other islands transitioned in status 
over time from unallocated Crown land or private lease, 
to Game Reserve, Conservation Area or Nature Reserve 
depending on their values. Macquarie Island, including 
Judge and Clerk and Bishop and Clerk islets, was proclaimed 
a Wildlife Sanctuary in 1933, a Conservation Area in 
1971, State Reserve in 1972, Nature Reserve in 1978 and 
in 1997 was inscribed on the World Heritage List (PWS 
2006) with its boundaries extended several times since to 
incorporate marine reserves. The Tasmanian Wilderness 
World Heritage Area incorporates numerous islands around 
the southwest coast, the larger being the Maatsuyker Island 
Group, De Witt, Ile du Golfe, Louisa Island, Hen and 
Chicken Islands, Pedra Branca, Mewstone, Eddystone 
Rock, Trumpeter Islet, Muttonbird Island, Breaksea Island 
and the Swainson Group (DPIPWE 2016). 

Of Tasmania's larger offshore islands, 229 islands (more 
than 90% of them) have some level of statutory protection 
(table 1). This includes 75 islands previously classified as 
non-allocated Crown land but declared Conservation Areas 
through the Crown Lands Assessment Classification process 
in 2012. In 1995, as an act of reconciliation, the Tasmanian 
Government transferred control of seven islands (titima- 
Trefoil, Babel, Badger, Big Dog, Hummocky-Mt Chappell, 
Steep, lungtalanana-Clarke) and most of truwana-Cape 
Barren Island to the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania. 
Five of these islands are registered Indigenous Protected 
Areas (IPAs) managed by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, 
which also manages ‘Wybalenna’ on Flinders Island and 
a small parcel of coastal land at Great Bay, Bruny Island. 
‘Murrayfield Station’ on Bruny Island (4,097 ha) is owned 
and managed by the Indigenous Land Corporation. 

Over thirty Reserve Management Plans and Indigenous 
Healthy Country Plans contain over 112 islands within 


their jurisdictional boundary; however, some plans (e.g., : 


Small Bass Strait Island Reserves, Small North-East Islands 
and Small South-East Islands) have been in draft form for 
nearly two decades awaiting formal adoption (https://parks. 
tas. gov.au/about-us/managing-our-parks-and-reserves/ 
management-plans-reports). 


TABLE 1 — Status of Tasmania’s larger offshore 


islands. 
Statutory Reserves No. 
National Park 62 
Conservation Area 103 
Nature Reserve 44 
State Reserve 4 
Game Reserve 9 
Nature Rec. Area, Historic Site 2 
Indigenous Protected Area 5 
Total 2298 
Multi or Private Tenure No. 
Private Freehold 9 
Multiple Land Tenure 12 
(Aboriginal, private, reserved) 
Aboriginal Lands (Trefoil, Steep) ; 2 
Total 23 


Source: http://www.islandshare.net/; https://eatlas.org.au/ 
node/1703. 


Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service is the land manager 
for islands or parts of islands reserved under the National 
Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002 and the Tasmanian 
Aboriginal Centre manages IPAs dedicated under the 
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 
There is no single managing authority for unreserved 
islands in Tasmania; instead a range of state and local 
government agencies in accordance with Tasmania’s 
Resource Management and Planning System (TPC 2009) 


are responsible for aspects of their management and 
protection. 


86 Sally L. Bryant and Stephen Harris 


NATURE CONSERVATION VALUES 
Geo-conservation values 


Macquarie Island, Tasmania’s only oceanic island, gained 
World Heritage status for its globally significant geological 
formation and is the only island in the world composed 
entirely of oceanic crust and rocks originating from deep 
below the Earth’s surface (Williamson 1988). Macquarie 
Island is the only place where this exposed rock sequence 
is a uniquely complete section which can be studied in 
detail to better understand the processes of oceanic crust 
formation and plate boundary dynamics above sea-level 
(Comfort 2014). 

All of Tasmania's nearer offshore islands were formed as 
the sea level rose after the Last Glacial, hence their geologies 
_ are often directly related to the adjacent mainland (Jennings 

1959, Dixon 1996). King Island and the Fleurieu Group 
formed part of the peninsula northwest from Tasmania, and 
the Furneaux Group (and Kent and other island groups 
to the north) were part of the Bassian Rise land bridge 
between Tasmania and Victoria in the east. ‘ 

Tasmania’s islands are a range of hard and soft rock 
features, sandy dunes, spits, tombolos and isthmuses, with 
some displaying a range of significant geological features 
and diverse landforms (Banks 1993, Dixon 1996, Seymour 
et al. 2007). Features illustrating this diversity include: the 
tombolo on Actaeon Island, the tessellated pavements of 
Reid Rocks, the caves on Erith Island and De Witt, the 
lagoon on Southwest Island and the flowstone comprised 
of seal excrement on Judgement Rock. 

Eberhard (2011) observed several bizarre-shaped 
weathered boulders on the coast of Inner Sister Island 
and identified the fabric of the granitic rock (mineral 
segregations and/or xenoliths) and presumed Pleistocene 
colluvial fans as features worthy of listing on the Tasmanian 
Geoconservation Database. On Hunter Island he identified 
the Cave Bay raised sea cave, Hunter Island cobble berms, 


and the Hunter Passage perched lagoons as being distinctive 
in the broader western Bass Strait region and also worthy 
of inclusion (Eberhard 2017). 

On King Island, the Cambrian rocks along the City of 
Melbourne Bay foreshore contain globally significant lava 
pillows demonstrating seafloor volcanism, with other islands 
in northwest Tasmania, e.g., Robbins Island, displaying 
outstanding examples of beach ridge sequences marking at 
least two major phases of Quaternary activity. Maria Island’s 
fossil cliffs, gulches, sea caves, raised shore platforms, blow 
hole and a razor-backed saddle-ridge are recognised as a 


~ globally unique set of features. The spectacular parallel 


dune systems enclosing brackish lagoons along the east 
coast of the Furneaux Islands, and the saline lagoon systems 
of truwuna-Cape Barren Island and lungtalanana-Clarke 
Island, are also of high geo-conservation significance 
(Dixon 1996). 

Other islands of geo-significance are Black Pyramid for 
its Tertiary basaltic volcanic features, the sea caves and 
seal-related flowstone of Ile des Phoques, the geology of 
Pedra Branca and Eddystone Rock, and Tasman Island for 
its well-exposed columnar dolerite (pl. 2). 


Fauna values 


Over one third of Tasmania’s land-based threatened fauna 
species occur on offshore islands (63 of 181 species, 35 %, 
appendix 1) demonstrating the significant role islands play 
in faunaconservation. Some islandsare critical breeding sites 
or provide seasonal foraging habitat and some faunal groups, 
particularly island endemics or invertebrates, and found in 
only oneisland location. Even though the invertebrate values 
on Tasmania’s offshore islands are becoming better known, 
this faunal group remains significantly under-surveyed. The 
coastal mollusc fauna on King Island contains at least 408 
species with 78 being recorded for the first time by Grove 
and de Little (2014). Hamish Saunders Memorial Island 
surveys and Oil Spill Response surveys have targeted the 


PLATE 2 — Dolerite structural 
columns on Tasman Island. 


Overview of Tasmania’ offshore islands and their role in nature conservation 87 


PLATE 3 — Rare Tasman Island Cricket 
Tasmanoplectron isolatum. 


collection of invertebrates during their expeditions often 
focusing on threatened species or specific groups such as 
butterflies, grasshoppers, freshwater crayfish or molluscs, 
and invariably these surveys have resulted in new species 
finds and range expansions. For example, the invertebrate 
surveys conducted on Tasman Island identified a new snail 
species, Planilaoma? sp. nov. “Tasman Island”, a previously 
undescribed snail species, Pedicamista sp. “Southport”, and 
the lodgement of voucher specimens of the rare Tasman 
Island Cricket Tasmanoplectron isolatum (Bryant & Shaw 

2006, pl. 3). New records of the molluscan Magilaoma 
penolensis and Scelidoropasp “Ridges Road” were made 
on Rodondo Island (Carlyon et al. 2015) and a species of 
stick insect was recorded for the first time in the eastern 
Bass Strait on Inner Sister Island (Harris & Reid 2011). 
Unique assemblages of troglobitic cave invertebrates occur 
on Flinders Island and range extensions for other species 
such as the endemic Furneaux Burrowing Crayfish Engaeus 
martigener and Fringed Heath-blue Butterfly Neolucia 
agricola insulana (NCHD 2014) have been made there. 
The discontinuation of integrated island survey programs 
has meant that invertebrates are now often overlooked 
during short-stay visits and this gap in knowledge concurs 
with Mesibov’s (2019) findings of a decrease in records of 
invertebrates lodged in museums and on databases since 
the turn of the century. 

Islands are recognised globally as places with high levels 
of endemism and sites of extinction, and Tasmania’s islands 
follow this trend. In addition to the Thylacine Thylacinus 
cynocephalus and Tasmanian Emu Dromaius novaehollandiae 
diemenensis now extinct on mainland Tasmania, three 
island-specific endemic vertebrate species or subspecies 


have been destroyed on Tasmania's islands (Macquarie - 


Island Parakeet Cyanoraniphus erythrotis, Macquarie Island 
Rail Gallirallus philippensis macquariensis, King Island Emu 
Dromaius novaehollandiae minor) with a probable fourth, 
a Macquarie Island seal species, exterminated before it 
was scientifically described (Terauds & Stewart 2009). 
Even more localised island extinctions have occurred. For 


example, on King Island, the King Island Emu, Forty- 
spotted Pardalote Pardalotus quadragintus, Spotted-tailed 
Quoll Dasyurus maculatus, Common Wombat Vombatus 
ursinus and Southern Elephant Seal Mirounga leonine are 
now extinct with a further 12 island species on the verge 
of extinction including the critically endangered King 
Island Scrub Tit Acanthornis magnus greenianus and King 
Island Brown Thornbill Acanthiza pusilla subsp. archibaldi 
(Donaghey 2003, TSS 2012, Webb et al. 2016). Other 
examples of regional extinctions are: Australian Sea Lions 
Neophoca cinerea no longer breed in Bass Strait after 
being eliminated on Christmas and New Year islands by 
harvesting in the nineteenth century, and an Australasian 
Gannet Morus serrator colony destroyed on Cat Island in 
the Furneaux Group before protective measures could be 
implemented (D. Pemberton, pers. comm). 

The core breeding range for the Nationally Endangered 
Swift Parrot Lathamus discolour and Forty-spotted Pardalote 
centre on Flinders Island, Bruny Island and Maria Island 
and the Critically Endangered Orange-bellied Parrot 
Neophema chrysogaster depends on saltmarsh habitat on 
King Island and probably uses a number of northwest 
islands during its annual autumn migration (Bryant 
& Jackson 1999). On Flinders, truwuna-Cape Barren 
and lungtalanana-Clarke islands (pl. 4), the saltmarsh 
communities, heathland and remnant forests are breeding 
sites for threatened or naturally restricted species such 
as the Dwarf Galaxias Galaxiella pusilla, New Holland 
Mouse Pseudomys novaehollandiae, Green and Gold Bell 
Frog Litoria aurea and other genetically or regionally 
distinct fauna species (e.g., Bass Strait Common Wombat 
Vombatus ursinus subsp. ursinus, Chappell Island Tiger 
Snake Notechis scutatus). Islands are also microcosms for 
bird species like Silvereye Zosterops or poor-dispersers such 
as scrub wren Sericornis sp. and thornbill Acanthiza sp. 
which all over the world have evolved into specific island 
forms (Kirkwood & O’Connor 2010) and in Tasmania 
show distinct behavioural or morphological variation in the 
Bass Strait region (Bryant & Carlyon 2013). Pedra Branca 


88 Sally L. Bryant and Stephen Harris 


islet (2.5 ha, pl. 5) is one of only three breeding sites for 
Endangered Shy Albatross Thalassarche cauta and critical 
habitat for the endemic Pedra Branca Skink Niveoscincus 
palfreymani, one of the rarest and most restricted reptiles 
in the world (Threatened Species Unit 2001). 

The Ramsar wetlands of Lavinia (King Island), Logan 
Lagoon (Flinders Island) and truwuna-Cape Barren Lagoons 
are essential feeding sites for migratory waders during their 
annual East Asian migration (Woehler & Ruoppolo 2010) 
and the islands in the Boullanger Bay-Robbins Passage area 
are the stronghold for 17 species of migratory and resident 
waders including Hooded Plover Thinornis rubricollis, 
Pied Oystercatcher Haematopus longirostris, Little Tern 
Sternula albifrons and Fairy Tern Sternula nereis (Bryant 
2002). These values are recognised internationally with 29 
Important Bird Areas (IBAs) designated wholly or partly 


PLATE 4 — Northeast ridge on Mt Munro, 
truwuna-Cape Barren Island, looking across to 
Mount Strzelecki on Flinders Island. 


on Tasmanian islands, the highest number of island-IBAs 
of any Australian state (Kirkwood & O’Connor 2010). 

Tasmania’s islands are central to the ecology of all 
our land-breeding marine vertebrates including globally 
threatened albatrosses, giant petrel and burrowing seabird 
species and seal species (Bryant & Jackson 1999). Over 60 
species of seabird including massive aggregations of Short- 
tailed Shearwater Ardenna tenuirostris and Little Penguin 
Eudyptula minor breed on the Bass Strait islands, including 
those in the Hogan Group (Brothers et a/. 2001, Carlyon er 
al, 2011). Sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island has an estimated 
biomass of 3.5 million breeding seabirds, predominantly 
penguins with some (e.g., Royal Penguin Eudyptes schlegeli, 
Macquarie Island Shag Leucocarbo purpurascens and several 
species of burrowing petrel) breeding only there (Bryant 
& Shaw 2007, Terauds & Stewart 2009). 


PLATE 5 — Pedra Branca Islet 
located ~ 27 km off South East 
Cape. 


Overview of Tasmania’ offshore islands and their role in nature conservation 89 


Flora values 


The flora species on the littoral margins of the large islands 
and all low-lying islands are predominantly vagile and 
consequently tend to be widespread in occurrence. The 
autochthonous components of the floras on the larger 
islands are of special significance in some localities where 
the vegetation and floras are the result of climatic and 
fire factors peculiar to those sites. For example, Rodondo 
Island supports climax communities of Eucalyptus globulus, 
and Melaleuca armillaris as well as several plant taxa of 
regional biogeographic significance (Carlyon et al. 2015) 
which have evolved in the long absence of fire. Rodondo 
and Craggy islands also have one of the few indigenous 
Tasmanian occurrences of the shrub Paraserianthes 
lophantha, representing the eastern extremity of its natural 
distribution (Harris et a/. 2001). Bass Strait islands are of 
particular biogeographical interest. The cloud forest on Mt 
Strzelecki on Flinders Island contains rainforest elements 
such as Atherosperma moschatum and a high proportion of 
the 137 species of liverworts and mosses recorded for the 
Strzelecki National Park (Harris et a/. 2015). Such species 
assemblages assist in unravelling the palaeoenvironmental 
history of Bass Strait. The cloud forest on Mt Munro on 
truwuna-Cape Barren Island has the only Tasmanian stands 
of the tree Bedfordia arborescens within an unusual mosaic 
of plant communities (Harris & Lazarus 2006). 

The east shelf of Maria Island has an ecologically important 
forest boundary, where stands of pure Callitris rhomboidea 
abut Phyllocladus aspleniifolius-dominated rainforest, 
a situation attributable to an unusual combination of 
site factors, one of which appears to be the stripping of 
moisture by the rainforest from easterly sea mists. Such 
a sharp boundary between climax dry forest and climax 
cool temperate rainforest is significant in demonstrating 
the coincidence of forest types which may have been more 
common prior to the radiation of the eucalypts. 


PLATE 6 — Island Leek Lilly Bulbine 
crassa, Neds Reef, near truwana- 
Cape Barren Island. 


Many islands have one or more threatened plant species 
(appendix 2) or vegetation communities. For example, 
Bruny Island has approx. 39 state or nationally threatened 
plant species (Cochran 2003), and in 2019 a population 
of Acacia acinacea new to Tasmania was identified there 
(TLC 2019). In Bass Strait, Apium insulare and Bulbine 
crassa (pl. 6) represent taxa confined to the islands according 
to present knowledge, with so many other species such as 
Isopogon ceratophyllus and Leiocarpa supina occurring there 
as distribution range outliers. 

Other island floras of national significance occur on 
Ile du Golfe, Maatsuyker Island and Flat Witch in the 
Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (Balmer et 
al. 2004) and the limestone flora on Prime Seal Island 
retains direct affinities with the Recherche Archipelago in 
Western Australia and the limestone coastal flora of South 
Australia (Harris et al, 2001): Deal Island in the Kent 
Group was visited in 1803 by the botanist Robert Brown 
who consequently made this the type locality for several 
plant taxa he collected there and first described. 

Macquarie Island has a unique assemblage of vegetation 
communities and 48 plant species including four endemics 
(de Salas & Baker 2018), with one of these endemics, 
the critically endangered cushion-forming Azorella 
macquariensis, a dominant species of the fjaeldmark 
community (Selkirk et a/. 1990). 


INTRODUCTIONS AND TRANSLOCATIONS 


Islands are often regarded as stocking grounds for plants and 
animals declining elsewhere. Historically, several islands in 
Tasmania have had ad hoc releases such as Koala Phascolarctos 
cinereus, Forester Kangaroo Macropus giganteus and Cape 
Barren Geese Cereopsis novachollandiae to Three Hummock 
Island (Bryant 2008) and Tasmanian Devil Sarcophilus 
harrisii to Badger Island in 1996 (DPIPWE 2010a). By 


90 Sally L. Bryant and Stephen Harris 


far the highest number of alien introductions have been to 
Maria Island with over 90 exotic plant species introduced 
as ornamental plants or for cultivation and 19 vertebrate 
species actively liberated or a legacy of European settlement 
(PWS 1998). Fallow Deer Dama dama were introduced to 
the pastures around Frenchs Farm but eradicated in 1998. 
Forester Kangaroo and Cape Barren Geese were introduced 
as they were declining in populations elsewhere and in 1968 
Australian Emu Dromaius novaehollandiae were introduced 
ina failed experiment to recreate the extinct Tasmanian Emu 
but were removed in the 1980s (Rounsevell 1989). Between 


1969 and 1972, over 760 individuals from 13 species of © 


mammal and bird were liberated on Maria as a potential 
food source for Thylacine should they ever be re-discovered 
and need to be relocated there (National Parks & Wildlife 
Service 1972). The legacy of these multiple introductions 
has compounded disturbance to Maria’s ecosystem and 
imposed a burden of ongoing management to reduce several 
problematic species. 

In 2012, Nationally Endangered Tasmanian Devils free 
of facial tumour disease were released on Maria Island to 
establish a free-ranging population under an approved 
translocation plan. Devils have subsequently successfully 
established and bred to a level where they are now being 
actively removed to re-populate mainland Tasmania 


sites (Wise et al. 2016). Tasmanian islands also provide 
opportunities for plant translocations though few have been 
undertaken to date. An ex-situ planting of the Critically 
Endangered endemic Epacris stuartii on Southport Island 
was undertaken in 2001 to prevent the species extinction 
should Phytophthora cinnamoni infect the only known wild 
population on nearby Southport Bluff. Recent suggestions 
of re-wilding some Bass Strait islands by reintroducing 
native extirpated predators to benefit threatened species 
is a novel approach which may become a recognised 
conservation tool of the future (Fielding et a/. 2020). 


ISLAND MONITORING PROGRAMS 


Itis difficult to assess the trends in the condition of Tasmania’s 
offshore island environments as no baseline indicators 
are in place (Tasmanian Planning Commission 2009). 
However, at least 50 islands undergo repeat site visits to 
assess vertebrate breeding populations or monitor numbers; 
the most regularly visited are shown in table 2. One of the 
longest running wildlife monitoring programs in the world 
ison Fisher Island, where Short-tailed Shearwaters have been 
monitored annually since 1947 when first established by 
the ornithologist Dominic Serventy (Bradley et a/. 2008). 


TABLE 2 —Vertebrate assessments on Tasmanian islands.1:2 


Species or group 


Islands monitored 


Australian fur seal breeding and haul-out 
sites 


Maatsuyker, De Witt, Needles, Walker, Little Witch, Pedra Branca, Mewstone, 
Sugarloaf Rocks, Tasman, Hippolyte Rock, Albatross, Black Pyramid, Tenth, 
Judgement Rocks, West Moncoeur, Bass Pyramid, Wright Rocks, Reid Rocks, East 


Moriarty, West Moriarty Rocks; Bull Rocks, Ile des Phoques, Bruny, The Friars 


Shy Albatross 

Albatrosses (4 species), Giant Petrel (2 
species), burrowing seabirds (21 species), 
penguins (4 species), seals (5 species) 


Macquarie 


Australasian Gannett 


Little Penguin 


Pacific Gull 

Shorebirds (~17 resident and migratory 
species) 

Forty-spotted Pardalote, Swift Parrot 
Orange-bellied Parrot 

Eagles (2 species) 


Goose, Flinders 

Robbins, Walker, Perkins, Kangaroo, Wallaby Islets, Montague, Maria, Flinders, 
Cape Barren, King, Bruny 

Maria, Flinders, Bruny including Partridge 

King, Robbins, Walker, Perkins, Port Davey islands 

Most regularly Maria, Bruny, Flinders 


Albatross, Mewstone, Pedra Branca 


Pedra Branca, Eddystone, Black Pyramid, Bass Pyramid, Cat 
Bruny, Ninth, Passage, Forsyth, King, Councillor, Georges Rocks, Diamond, Maria, 
Schouten, Huon, Tasman, De Witt, Maatsuyker, Louisa, Flinders 


Short-tailed Shearwater, Cape Barren Goose, Maatsuyker, Fisher, Big Green, East Kangaroo, Little Green, Great Dog, Little Dog, 


Brown Quail 


Chappell, Bruny, Tasman, Flinders, Vansittart, Tin Kettle, Woody, East Kangaroo, 


Goose, Isabella, Inner Sister, Badger 


Pedra Branca Skink Pedra Branca 


Common Pheasant 
Macropods, Brush-tailed Possum 


Hunter group, Furneaux group, King 
Maria, Flinders, King 


! Visits may be irregular or repeat visits for breeding or population assessments, or determining harvesting quotas, etc. 
2 Referenced from multiple sources including back issues of Game Tracks (https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/Game-tracks.pdf), 


Driessen & Hocking (2008). 


Overview of Tasmania’ offshore islands and their role in nature conservation 91 


Short-tailed Shearwater, Cape Barren Geese and Brown 
Quail Coturnix ypsilophora are monitored on several islands 
in the Furneaux Group to determine harvesting quotas 
(Wildlife Management Branch 2010) and over 20 islands 
and rock stacks are surveyed regularly for Australian Fur 
Seal Arctocephalus pusillus activity (Bryant & Jackson 1999, 
Kirkwood etal. 2010). Shorebirds are surveyed seasonally on 
multiple islands in Boullanger Bay area, with over 70 islands 
having been surveyed repeatedly for these species during the 
past 30 years (Bryant 2002, Woehler & Ruoppolo 2010). 
Critical research on Shy Albatross has been undertaken on 
Albatross Island, Mewstone and Pedra Branca for over 20 
years as part of this species recovery efforts, and monitoring 
programs on Macquarie Island have been critical to determine 
population numbers pre-and post-pest eradication programs 
(Springer 2018). Another Macquarie Island research program 
monitoring the impact of European Rabbit Oryctolagus 
cuniculus browsing on sensitive vegetation has continued 


since 1981 (Whinam & Shaw 2018). 


THREATS 
Invasive species 


Invasive species are an insidious threat that impact most 
of Tasmania's offshore islands and often go unnoticed and 
unmanaged. While no current comprehensive information 
exists on the number of Tasmanian islands impacted 
by invasive species, at least 70 have been recorded with 


- introduced mammal species (Brothers e¢ a/, 2001, Terauds 


2005, Pfennigwerth 2008, TPC 2009). The mostcommonly 
recorded are European Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus, feral 
Cat Felis catus, Black Rat Rattus rattus, House Mouse Mus 
musculus and a variety of domestic stock. Feral Pigs Sus 
scrofa are widespread on parts of Flinders Island since their 
introduction in the early 1880s (Statham & Middleton 
1987) and recent Fallow Deer Dama dama have yet to be 
removed from the wild on Bruny Island and King Island. 
Many introduced bird species occur on islands often liberated 
for hunting or pleasure such as Ring-necked (Common) 
Pheasant Phasianus colchicus, Turkey Meleagris gallopavo 
and Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus on Flinders Island and 
King Island. 

Weeds are widespread on even more offshore islands, 
many being either cosmopolitan or ruderal species or 
possibly benign in their ecological impacts. Weeds that pose 
problems include, for example: African Boxthorn Lycium 
ferocissimum, Gorse Ulex europaeus, Canary Broom Genista 
monspessulana, Spanish Heath Erica lusitanica, Shining 
Coprosma Coprosma repens, Blackberry Rubus fruticosus and 
Sea Spurge Euphorbia paralias. Marram Grass Ammophila 
arenaria was introduced to Tasmania to stabilise sand dunes 


and is now widespread and well-established on the sandy © [ 


coasts of most near onshore islands. Macquarie Island 
has seven alien plant species, two of which Anthoxanthum 
odoratum and Rumex crispus have already been removed 
(de Salas & Baker 2018). 


The occurrence of the water mould Phytophthora 
cinnamomi is a significant cause of degradation in heathland 
communities on larger islands such as Schouten Island, 
Three Hummock Island, Flinders Island, truwuna-Cape 
Barren Island and lungtalanana-Clarke Island where it 
infests swathes of heathland. The result is the selective 
mortality of plants in the susceptible families, especially 
Proteaceae, Myrtaceae, Ericaceae and Fabaceae. 

Until recently, vertebrate control programs on islands 
have been largely ad-hoc with mixed success. However, 
over the past decade Tasmania has significantly improved 
its eradication methodologies with several now cited as 
exemplars of success. Pest management on Macquarie 
Island had systematically eradicated Weka Gallirallus 
australis by 1988, feral Cats by 2002, and finally Rabbits, 
Black Rat and House Mouse by 2014 in a multipronged 
multi-species approach (Springer 2018, pl. 7). Feral Cats 
have been eradicated from Tasman Island and Wedge 
Island (Robinson et al, 2015, Robinson & Gadd 2020), 
House Mouse from Fisher Island (S. Robinson, pers. com.) 
and Black Rat from Big Green Island (Robinson & Dick 
2020) with planning underway on other islands. The 
Bruny Island Cat Management program commenced in 
mid-2016 and has already significantly reduced cat numbers 
aiming to meet the Commonwealth's target of being one 
of Australia’s Five Cat Free Islands (Allan 2019). Several 
feasibility plans have been prepared for the removal of feral 
Pig Sus scrofa from Flinders Island, but none have yet to 
secure funding. The improved success of government-led 
eradication efforts has been largely due to a combination of 


PLATE 7 — European Rabbit denuding the slopes of Macquarie 
Island prior to eradication. 


92. Sally L. Bryant and Stephen Harris 


PLATE 8 — Taillefer 
Rocks off Schouten 
Island, Freycinet 
National Park. 


better planning, improved technology, aid from volunteer 
labour and philanthropic financial support (Springer 2018, 
Robinson & Dick 2020). 


Uncontrolled access 


Inappropriate or uncontrolled access to islands can cause 
disturbance to sensitive breeding species, and increase the 
risk or spread of invasive species, disease and fire. Several 
Tasmanian islands restrict public access unless authorised 
by permit (Macquarie Island, Judgement Rocks, North 
East Isle, South West Isle, Vissher Island, Ile de Phoques, 
Albatross Island, Rodondo Island and others) and partial 
restrictions apply to a number of islands within Freycinet 
National Park (The Nuggets, Refuge Island, Promise Rock, 
Lemon Rock, Half Lemon Rock, Eastern Rock and Taillefer 
Rocks (pl. 8)). 

A government protocol is in place which identifies 12 
steps to preventing pests, weeds and diseases spreading to 
Tasmania's islands (http://www.islandshare.net/Documents/ 
Island_Biosecurity_Guide.pdf), with additional biosecurity 
measures recommended for islands in Tasmania’s Southwest 
Wilderness Area (Mallick & Driessen 2009). Minimal 
impact guidelines have been prepared for sea kayakers to 
ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed or compromised 
during recreational visits which for some even remote 
islands have become a constant summer destination (D. 
Pemberton, pers. com.). Rigorous biosecurity procedures 
are in place for Macquarie Island and these are included as 
part of the guidelines for tourist operations to the island 
(PWS 2006, http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/). 


Climate change 


Australia’s most recent species extinction resulting from the 
loss of habitat by sea level rise (Woinarski et al. 2018) was 
the endemic Bramble Cay Melomys Melomys rubicola, from 
the northern Great Barrier Reef. More than 1,440 km of 
Tasmania's coast is subject to flooding, and over 975 km of 
shoreline at risk of erosion, sand dune mobility, rock falls 


and slumping asa result of sea level rise and more frequent 
storm surges (Sharples 2006, DPIPWE 2010b). A rise in 
mean sea level due to global warming of between 5 cm and 
14 cm for Tasmania is projected to occur by 2030 meaning 
1-in-100-year storm tide events could occur as frequently 
as once every 50 years, and are therefore likely to impact 
all low-lying Tasmanian islands. Southeastern Tasmania is 
predicted to experience the greatest increase in sea surface 
temperature and in Mercury Passage the rise of 1.6°C 
recorded in the past 50 years, is already three times the average 
rate of global warming (ACE CRC 2010, Parsons 2011). 
Ocean acidification and reduced calcification is anticipated to 
cause increased erosion of coral reefs like those off the islands 
in the Kent Group, having potential consequences for the 
marine food chain (TPC 2009). Australia-wide nearly 20% 
of migratory bird species are likely to be affected through the 
loss of habitat due to sea level rise and coastal development 
(Mallon 2007). Loss of frontline beach foredune, shrubland 
communities and tussock grassland will reduce breeding 
habitat for marine seabirds, most of which have high site 
fidelity. Sea level has fluctuated during the Holocene and 
there is evidence of fossil shorelines many metres above the 
current high-water mark. The response of the terrestrial biota 
to such sea level changes is poorly understood, although 
the ameliorative effects of higher sea levels in creating new 
habitats has been investigated by Prahalad and colleagues on 
coastal saltmarshes. They use predictive models to anticipate 
where new habitat may be created under different sea level 
change scenarios (e.g., Prahalad et al. 2012, Prahalad & 
Pearson 2013). Seminal research on the Macquarie Island 
Cushion Plant identified the cause of its decline was due 
to a climatic shift, exposing this unique cold, wet adapted 
species to prolonged periods of drying (Whinam & Shaw 
2018). The long-term monitoring of island species in 
remote environs is often pivotal for identifying the impact 
of insidious threats and recommending recovery actions that 
could benefit groups of co-located species (e.g., response 
of burrow nesting petrels to climate change in Brothers & 
Bone 2008). 


Overview of Tasmanias offshore islands and their role in nature conservation 93 


ISLAND PARTNERSHIPS 


Volunteers and philanthropic partnerships remain instru- 
mental in helping deliver a range of conservation initiatives 
on Tasmania's islands and are pivotal for ongoing success 
(Bryant & Copley 2018). Groups such as the Bruny Island 
Environmental Network are community-based collectives 
that assess policy, development applications and all manner 
of local issues to ensure transparency and protection of 
island values. Since the 1970s Birdlife Tasmania volunteers 
have collected bird data on species distribution, sensitive 
bird breeding islands (www.birdlife.org.au/locations/birdlife- 
tasmania) and assisted in island monitoring and eradication 
efforts. In 2020 Wildcare Tasmania (www.wildcaretas.org. 
au/) had 11 registered island-specific Wildcare groups 
contributing to weed removal, track or heritage restoration 
or caretaker positions on islands. Some, for example, the 
Friends of Bass Strait Islands manage weed removal on ten 
outer Furneaux Islands, and the Friends of Maatsuyker Island 
undertake lighthouse preservation, caretaker duties, weed 
removal and seabird monitoring, often at their own expense 
(Bryant & Copley 2018). The Cradle Coast Authority is 
aiming to protect shorebird species on Three Hummock 
Island by removing feral Cats and controlling Sea Spurge 
and other weeds in the Robbins Passage area. 

The Tasmanian Aboriginal community including 
the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre and the people on 
truwuna-Cape Barren Island, Flinders Island and 
Bruny Island have formed strong partnerships with a 
range of government and private bodies to undertake 
research and collaborate on land management projects 
on their islands, including with Australian National 
University researchers, allowing the investigation of 
palaeoenvironments reconstructed from sediment and 
pollen cores (McWethy et al. 2017). 

Since 1989 the Princess Melikoff Trust has financially 
supported government marine mammal conservation by 
funding surveys of seal breeding and haul-out sites on 
numerous islands around Tasmania, and from 2003 to 
2017 a partnership with the Hamish Saunders Memorial 
Island Survey Program facilitated multi-disciplinary 
expeditions to 24 offshore islands and the publication of 
results. While several commercial businesses (e.g., Maria 
Island Walk (www.mariaislandwalk.com.au)) support local 
island initiatives, the most influential island partnership 
to date has been with Pennicott Wilderness Journeys, who 
make sizeable donations from the Pennicott Foundation 
which have been pivotal in the success of so many island 
management programs (https://www.pennicottfoundation. 
org.au/projects/). : 

Collaborating in international symposia like the Small 
Island Developing States (www.first.org/events/symposium/ 
nadi2019/) and the National Island Arks Symposia (http:// 


islandarks.com.au/) are instrumental for the sharing of ~ 


knowledge across multi-disciplines dealing with island 
management including the role of local communities and 
indigenous practice. Participation in collaborative forums 
such as these is essential for island managers to discuss 
commonly shared problems as islands become increasingly 


more attractive for developments and expanding populations 
at the cost of their natural values. 


CONCLUSIONS 


Tasmania's offshore islands contain globally unique natural 
values and play a significant role in nature conservation, 
but their ongoing management is necessary to prevent 
degradation and local species extinction. A national 
review by Ecosure (2009) identified 15 Tasmanian islands 
among Australia’s top 100 most conservation important 
islands greater than 200 ha in size. While those identified 
are significant, size is not a valid criterion to determine 
conservation value as most, even small, islands can contain 
inherently unique assemblages. Management of islands 
requires a multi-disciplinary approach supported by 
comprehensive evidence and a decision support system 
(Lohr et al. 2018) that can simplify the myriad of possible 
actions involved in protecting island species. One such 
system designed by Helmstedt et al. (2016) for island 
invasive species eradication factored in a range of attributes 
including likelihood of success and cost-effectiveness, and 
demonstrated that for a fixed budget, a higher conservation 
benefit could be achieved across multiple islands. Assigning 
aset of baseline indices for island condition are also essential 
if we are to track the ecological health of islands in response 
to management programs or pressures from future use or 
climate change. 

Due to competing demands and costs associated with 
their access and management, islands seldom receive the 
timely attention they deserve, leaving them exposed to 
existing and emerging threats including inappropriate 
development. Designating islands that contain important 
nature conservation values as ‘Matters of National 
Environmental Significance’ under the Commonwealth 
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 
1999 (EPBC Act) has been proposed by Woinarski er al. 
(2018). This mechanism could be strengthened further by 
the listing of ‘important island populations’ as threatened 
communities or threatened ecosystems under Tasmania's 
Nature Conservation Act 2001. \f important islands were 
designated as a ‘threatened ecological community’ it might 
focus attention and justify the direction of additional 
resources towards their management. 

With improving knowledge, technology and increased 
volunteer-philanthropic support, invasive species are being 
reduced with greater efficiency providing island systems time 
to recover. However, these efforts need to be supported and 
expanded if we are to retain our unique island ecologies 
in the future. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 


This paper is based on a keynote address given by the lead 
author at the Island Arks Symposium in 2012. Mr Keith 
Springer, DrJustine Shaw, Mr Grant Dixon and Mr Christian 
Bell kindly provided advice at that time. We thank Dr David 


94 Sally L. Bryant and Stephen Harris 


Pemberton and Dr Michael Driessen for their review of this 
manuscript and very helpful suggestions. Ms Eve Lazarus 
assisted with the compilation of Appendix 2. All photos are 
those of the authors. 


REFERENCES 


ACE CRC 2010: Climate Futures for Tasmania: extreme events: the 
summary. Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative 
Research Centre, Hobart, Tasmania: 12 pp. 

Allan, K. 2019: Bruny Island cat management project. Project update 
Feb 2019-July 2019. Kingborough Council: 14 pp (www. 
kingborough.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ 
Bruny-cat-management-update_Oct-2019.pdf). 

Balmer, J., Whinam, J., Kelman, J., Kirkpatrick, J.B. & Lazarus, 
E. 2004: A review of the floristic values of the Tasmanian 
Wilderness World Heritage Area. Nature Conservation 
Report 2004/3. DPIWE, Hobart, Australia: 133 pp. 

Banks, M.R. 1993: Reconnaissance geology and geomorphology 
of the major islands south of Tasmania. Report to the 
Department of Parks, Wildlife and Heritage, Tasmania: 
40 pp. 

Bradley, J., Skira, I. & Wooller, R. 2008: A long-term study of 
Short-tailed Shearwaters Puffinus tenuirostris on Fisher 
Island, Australia. /bis 133: 55-61. 

Brothers, N. & Bone, C. 2008: The response of burrow-nesting 
petrels and other vulnerable bird species to vertebrate 
pest management and climate change on sub-Antarctic 
Macquarie Island. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society 
of Tasmania 42(1): 123-148. 

Brothers, N., Pemberton, D., Pryor, H. & Halley, V. 2001: 
Tasmanias Offshore Islands: Seabirds and Other Natural 
Features. Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart: 
643 pp. 

Bryant, S.L. 2002: Conservation assessment of beach nesting and 
migratory shorebirds in Tasmania. Natural Heritage Trust 
Project NWP 11990, Nature Conservation Branch, 
Hobart: 123 pp. 

Bryant, S.L. (ed) 2008: Three Hummock Island: 2006 flora and fauna 
survey. Hamish Saunders Memorial Trust, New Zealand and 
Resource Management & Conservation, DPIW, Hobart, 
Nature Conservation Report Series 08/03: 54 pp. 

Bryant, S.L. 2014: Birds. /n Hansen, A. & Davies, M. (eds): Library 
at the End of the World: natural science and its illustrators. 
Royal Society of Tasmania, Hobart: 148-168. 

Bryant, S.L. & Carlyon, K. 2013: Birds of Inner Sister’ Island, 
Eastern Bass Strait. Tasmanian Bird Report 35:1-6. 

Bryant, S.L. & Copley, P.B. 2018: Partnerships for island 
conservation: it’s all about people. Jn Moro, D., Ball, D. 
& Bryant, S.L. (eds): Australian Island Arks: Conservation, 
Management and Opportunities. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton 
South, Victoria: 177-190. 

Bryant, S.L. & Jackson, J. 1999: Tasmania's Threatened Fauna 
Handbook: Where, What and How to Conserve Tasmania's 
Threatened Animals. Threatened Species Unit, Parks and 
Wildlife Service, Tasmanian Government Printer, Hobart: 
426 pp. (https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/threatened- 
species-and-communities/publications-forms-related- 
information/tasmanias-threatened-fauna-handbook). 

Bryant, S.L. & Shaw, J. (eds) 2006: Tasman Island: 2005 flora 
and fauna survey. Hamish Saunders Memorial Trust, New 
Zealand and Biodiversity Conservation Branch, DPIW, 
Hobart, Nature Conservation Report Series 06/01: 49 pp. 

Bryant, S.L. & Shaw. J.D. 2007: Threatened species assessment 
on Macquarie Island, Voyage 5, April 2007. Report to 
Biodiversity Conservation Branch, DPIW, Tasmania: 21 
pp. (https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/Macquarie- 
Island-Report-2007.pdf). 


Carlyon, K., Pemberton, D. & Rudman, T. 2011: Jslands of 
the Hogan Group, Bass Strait: Biodiversity and Oil Spill 
Response Survey. Resource Management and Conservation 
Division, DPIPWE, Hobart, Nature Conservation Report 
Series 11/03: 53 pp. 

Carlyon, K., Visoiu, M., Hawkins, C., Richards, K. & Alderman, 
R. 2015: Rodondo Island, Bass Strait: Biodiversity & Oil 
Spill Response Survey, January 2015. Natural and Cultural 
Heritage Division, DPIPWE, Hobart. Nature Conservation 
Report Series 15/04: 59 pp. 

Cochran, T. 2003: Managing Threatened Species and Communities 
on Bruny Island. Threatened Species Unit, Department of 
Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Tasmania: 
172 pp. 

Comfort, M. 2014: Macquarie Island World Heritage Area 
Geoconservation Strategy. Resource Management and 
Conservation Division, Department of Primary Industries, 
Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart. Nature 
Conservation Report Series 14/2: 48 pp. 

de Salas, M.E & Baker, M.L. 2018: A Census of the Vascular 
Plants of Tasmania, including Macquarie Island. Tasmanian 
Herbarium, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart: 
156 pp. 

Dixon, G. 1996: A reconnaissance inventory of sites of geo-conservation 
significance on Tasmanian islands. Report to Parks & Wildlife 
Service, Tasmania: 30 pp. 

Donaghey, R. (ed.) 2003: The fauna of King Island: A guide to 
identification and conservation management. King Island 
Natural Resource Management Group Inc. King Island: 
152 pp. 

Driessen, MM. & Hocking, G.J. 2008: Review of Wildlife 
Monitoring Priorities. Nature Conservation Report 08/02. 
Department of Primary Industries and Water, Tasmania: 
58 pp. 

DPIPWE 50 10a: Draft Recovery Plan for the Tasmanian Devil 
(Sarcophilus harrisii). Department of Primary Industries, 
Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart: 55 pp. (https:// 
dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/Draft-Tasmanian-Devil- 
Recovery-Plan.pdf). 

DPIPWE 2010b: Vulnerability of Tasmania’ natural environment to 
climate change: an overview. Unpublished report. Resource 
Management and Conservation Division, Department 
of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, 
Hobart: 90 pp. 

DPIPWE 2016: Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area 
Management Plan 2016, Department of Primary Industries, 
Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart: 240 pp. 

Eberhard, R. 2011: Geodiversity. Jn Harris, S. & Reid, A. (eds): 
Inner (West) Sister Island Scientific Expedition 2010. Hamish 
Saunders Memorial Trust, New Zealand and Resource 
Management and Conservation Division, DPIPWE. 
Hobart, Nature Conservation Report Series 11/2: 19-26. 

Eberhard, R. 2017: Aspects of geodiversity on Hunter Island: 
four Quaternary age Geosites. Jn Natural and Cultural 
Heritage Division: South Hunter and Stack Island Natural 
and Cultural Values Survey. Hamish Saunders Memorial 
Trust, New Zealand and the Natural and Cultural Heritage 
Division, DPIPWE. Hobart, Nature Conservation Report 
17/4: 69-70. 

Ecosure 2009: Prioritisation of high conservation status of offshore 
islands. Report to the Australian Government Department 
of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Ecosure, 
Cairns, Queensland: 387 pp. 

Fielding, M.W., Buettel, J.C. & Brook, B.W. 2020: Trophic 
rewilding of native extirpated predators on Bass Strait Islands 
could benefit woodland birds. Emu - Austral Ornithology 
120(3): 260-262. 

Gaston, A.J., Ydenberg, R.C. & Smith, G.E.J. 2007: Ashmole’s 
halo and population regulation in seabirds. Marine 
Ornithology 35: 119-126. 


Overview of Tasmania’ offshore islands and their role in nature conservation 95 


Grove, S. & de Little, R. 2014: The coastal marine mollusc fauna 
of King Island, Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the 
Royal Society of Tasmania 148: 17-42. 

Harris, S. 2014: Vascular Plants. 2 Hansen, A. & Davies, M. 
(eds): Library at the End of the World: natural science and 
its illustrators. Royal Society of Tasmania, Hobart: 22-49. 

Harris, S., Buchanan, A. & Connolly, A. 2001: One Hundred 
Islands: The Flora of the Outer Furneaux. DPIWE, Printing 
Authority of Tasmania, Hobart: 361 pp. 

Harris, S. & McKenny, H. 1999: Preservation Island, Furneaux 
Group: two hundred years of vegetation change. Papers and 
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 133(1): 85-101. 

Harris, S. & Reid, A. (eds) 2011: Jnner (West) Sister Island Scientific 
Expedition 2010. Hamish Saunders Memorial Trust, New 
Zealand and Resource Management and Conservation 
Division, DPIPWE, Hobart, Nature Conservation Report 
Series 11/2: 140 pp. 

Harris, S. & Lazarus, E. 2006: Ecological observations on a remote 
montane occurrence of Bedfordia arborescens (Asteraceae), 
Cape Barren Island, Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of 
the Royal Society of Tasmania 140: 35-48. 

Harris, S., Ziegler, K. & Dell, M. 2015: The vegetation and flora 
of Strzelecki National Park, Flinders Island, Tasmania. 
Cunninghamia 15: 163-184. 

Helmstedt, K.J., Shaw, J.D., Bode, M., Terauds, A., Springer, 
K., Robinson, S.A. & Possingham, H. 2016: Prioritizing 
eradication actions on islands: it’s not all or nothing. Journal 
of Applied Ecology 53: 733-741. 

Jennings, J.N. 1959: The coastal geomorphology of King Island, 
Bass Strait, in relation to change in the relative level of land 
and sea. Records of the Queen Victoria Museum, Launceston 
11: 1-37. 

Kirkpatrick, J.B. & Harwood, C.E. 1983: Plant communities 
of Tasmanian wetlands. Australian Journal of Botany 31: 
437-451. 

Kirkwood, J. & O’Connor, J. (eds) 2010: The state of Australia’s 
birds 2010: islands and birds. Supplement to Wingspan 
20(4): 52 pp. 

Kirkwood, R., Pemberton, D., Gales, R., Hoskins, A.J., Mitchell, 
T., Shaughnessy, P.D. & Arnould, J.PY. 2010: Continued 
population recovery by Australian fur seals. Marine and 
Freshwater Research 61: 695-701. 

Lohr, C.A., Baker, C.M., Bode, M. & Pressey, R.L. 2018: What's 
next on the list? Prioritising management actions on 
Australia’s islands. Jn Moro, D., Ball, D. & Bryant, S.L. 
(eds): Australian Island Arks: Conservation, Management 
and Opportunities. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton South, 
Victoria: 71-84. 

McWethy, D.B., Haberle, S.G., Hopf, EF. & Bowman, D.M.J.S. 
2017: Aboriginal impacts on fire and vegetation on 
a Tasmanian island. Journal of Biogeography 44(6): 
1319-1330. 

Mallick, S.A. & Driessen, M.M. 2009: Review, risk assessment 
and management of introduced animals in the Tasmanian 
Wilderness World Heritage Area. Nature Conservation 
Report 10/01. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, 
Water and Environment, Tasmania: 66 pp. 

Mallon, K. 2007: Climate change impacts on marine and coastal 
birds. Waves 13: 10. : 

Mesiboy, R. 2019: Times have changed for field work in Tasmania. 
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141: 137-143. 

Moro, D., Ball, D. & Bryant, S.L. (eds) 2018: Australian Island 
Arks: Conservation, management and opportunities. CSIRO 
Publishing, Clayton South, Victoria: 264 pp. 

National Parks & Wildlife Service 1972: Report for the year 
ended 1972. Report presented to both Houses of Parliament 
pursuant to section 6 of the National Parks and Wildlife 
Act 1970. Government Printer, Hobart: 114 pp. 

NCHD Natural & Cultural Heritage Division 2014: Flinders 
Island: Natural Values Survey 2012. Hamish Saunders 
Memorial Trust, New Zealand and Natural and Cultural 


Heritage Division, DPIPWE, Hobart. Nature Conservation 
Report Series 14/1: 134 pp. 

Parsons, K.E. 2011: Nowhere Else on Earth: Tasmania’s Marine 
Natural Values. Report for Environment Tasmania. Aquenal, 
Tasmania: 102 pp. 

Pfennigwerth, S. 2008: Feral Animals of Tasmania. WorldWide 
Fund for Nature Australia, Threatened’ Species Network, 
Hobart: 62 pp. 

Polis, G.A. & Hurd, $.D. 1996: Linking marine and terrestrial 

’ food webs: allochthonous input from the ocean supports 
high secondary productivity on small islands and coastal 
land communities. American Naturalist 147 (3): 396-423. 

Prahalad, V., Kirkpatrick, J. 8& Mount, R. 2012: Tasmanian coastal 
salt marsh community transitions associated with climate 
change and relative sea level rise 1975-2009. Australian 
Journal of Botany 59: 74\-748. 

Prahalad, V. & Pearson, J. 2013: Southern Tasmanian Saltmarsh 
Futures: A Preliminary Strategic Assessment. NRM South, 
Hobart, Tasmania: 73 pp. 

PWS 1998: Maria Island National Park and Ile des Phoques Nature 
Reserve Management Plan 1998. Parks and Wildlife Service, 
Tasmania: 120 pp. 

PWS 2006: Macquarie Island Nature Reserve and World Heritage Area 
Management Plan. Parks and Wildlife Service. Department 
of Tourism, Arts and the Environment, Hobart: 207 pp. 

Robinson, S. & Dick, W. 2020: Black rats eradicated from Big 
Green Island in Bass Strait, Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings 
of the Royal Society of Tasmania 154: 37-46. 

Robinson, S. & Gadd, L. 2020: Unviable feral cat population 
results in eradication success on Wedge Island, Tasmania. 
Papers and Proceedings Royal Society 154: 47-50. 

Robinson, S., Gadd, L., Johnston, M. & Pauza, M. 2015: Long- 
term protection of important seabird breeding colonies on 
Tasman Island through eradication of cats. New Zealand 
Journal of Ecology 39(2): 316-322. 

Rounsevell, D. 1989: Managing offshore island reserves for nature 
conservation in Tasmania. Jn Burbidge, A. (ed): Australian 
and New Zealand islands: nature conservation values and 
management. Department of Conservation and Land 
Management, Perth, Western Australia: 157-161. 

RPDC 2006: State of the Environment Tasmania. Resource Planning 
and Development Commission last modified 14 December 
2006 (http//www.rpdc.tas.gov. au/RPDCr). 

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2014: 
Island Biodiversity — Island Bright Spots in Conservation & 
Sustainability. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological 
Diversity, Montreal, Canada: 92 pp. (www.unenvironment. 
org/resources/report/island-biodiversity-island-bright-spots- 
conservation-sustainability). 

Selkirk, P.M., Seppelt, R.D. & Selkirk, D.R. (1990) Subantarctic 
Macquarie Island: environment and biology. Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge: 285 pp. 

Seymour, D.B., Green, G.R. & Calver, C.R. 2007: The geology and 
mineral deposits of Tasmania: a summary. Geological Survey 
Bulletin 72. Mineral Resources Tasmania, Department of 
Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Tasmania: 32 pp. 

Sharples, C. 2006: Indicative mapping of Tasmanian coastal 
vulnerability to climate change and sea-level rise: 
Explanatory report (second edn). Consultant Report to 
Department of Primary Industries & Water, Hobart, 
Tasmania: 173 pp. 

Springer, K. 2018: Island pest management. /n Moro, D., Ball, D. 
& Bryant, S.L. (eds): Australian Island Arks: Conservation, 
Management and Opportunities. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton 
South, Victoria: 85-98. 

Statham, M. & Middleton, M. 1987: Feral pigs on Flinders Island. 
Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 
121: 121-124. 

Tasmanian Planning Commission 2009: State of the Environment 
Report: Tasmania 2009. Tasmanian Planning Commission, 
Tasmania: 20 pp. (www.planning.tas.gov.au/__data/ 


96 Sally L. Bryant and Stephen Harris 


assets/pdf_file/0006/332736/State_of_the_Environment_ 
overview_2009.pdf) 

TASMAP 2006: Islands of Tasmania Map Scale 1:600,000 
TASMAP Production. State Government of Tasmania, 
Hobart, Tasmania. 

Terauds, A. 2005: Introduced animals on Tasmanian Islands. 
Biodiversity Conservation Branch, Department of Primary 
Industries, Water and Environment (DPIWE), Hobart, 
Tasmania: 19 pp. 

Terauds, A. & Stewart, FE. 2009: Subantarctic Wilderness: Macquarie 
Island. Allen & Unwin, NSW: 176 pp. 

Threatened Species Unit 2001: Pedra Branca Skink Recovery Plan. 
Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment 
(DPIWE), Hobart: 22 pp. 

TLC 2019: Newsletter No 60 Tasmanian Land Conservancy (https:// 
tasland.org.au/content/uploads/2019/12/NL60_TLC- 
WEB.pdf). 

TPC 2009: Natural values chapter and introduced species on 
offshore islands indicator. State of the Environment 
Report: Tasmania 2009. Tasmanian Planning Commission, 
Tasmania: 20 pp. (https://epa.tas.gov.au/epa/air/legislative- 
context-air-quality-in-tasmania/state-of-the-environment- 
reports) 

TSS 2012: King Island Biodiversity Management Plan. Threatened 
Species Section, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, 
Water and Environment (DPIPWE), Hobart: 144 pp. 

Webb, M.H., Holdsworth, M., Stojanovic, D., Terauds, A., Bell 
P. & Heinsohn, R. 2016: Immediate action required to 
prevent another Australian avian extinction: the King Island 
Scrubtit. Emu 116: 223-229. 


Whinam, J. & Shaw, J.D. 2018: Australia’s World Heritage islands. 
In Moro, D., Ball, D. & Bryant, S.L. (eds): Australian 
Island Arks: Conservation, Management and Opportunities. 
CSIRO Publishing, Clayton South, Victoria: 147-164. 

Wildlife Management Branch 2010: Game Tracks Issue 15. 
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and 
Environment (DPIPWE), Hobart: 60 pp. 

Williamson, PE. 1988: Origin, structural and tectonic history of 
the Macquarie Island region. Papers and Proceedings of the 
Royal Society of Tasmania 122(1): 27-43. 

Wise, P., Lee, D., Peck, S., Clarke, J., Thalmann, S., Hockley, 
J., Schaap, D. & Pemberton, D. 2016: The conservation 
introduction of Tasmanian devils to Maria Island National 
Park: A response to Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD). 
In Soorae, PS. (ed.): Global Re-introduction Perspectives: 
2016. Case studies From Around the Globe. Gland, 
Switzerland: 166-171. 

Woehler, E.J. & Ruoppolo, V. 2010: Shorebirds and seabirds of 
Flinders and King Islands. Jz Kirkwood, J. & J. O'Connor, 
J. (eds): The state of Australia’s birds 2010: islands and birds. 
Supplement to Wingspan 20(4): 10-11. 

Woinarski, J.C.Z., Burbidge, A.A. & Reside, A.E. 2018: 
Enhancing island conservation outcomes: the policy and 
legal context, need, and options. /n Moro, D., Ball, D. 
& Bryant, S.L. (eds): Australian Island Arks: Conservation, 
Management and Opportunities. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton 
South, Victoria: 45-60. 


(Accepted 30 October 2020) 


APPENDIX 1 — Threatened Land-based fauna recorded on Tasmania’s offshore islands. 


Species identified from (https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/threatened-species-and-communities/lists-of-threatened-species/full-list-of- 
threatened-species; last updated 16 July 2020). Status in Tasmania TAS on the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and Commonwealth 
CW status refers to listings under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Status code: CR critically endangered, 
e, EN endangered, x, EX extinct, v, VU vulnerable, r rare. Accuracy of distribution records on the Natural Values Atlas (Department of 
Primary Industries, Water and Environment, accessed 20 Oct 2020), is variable for many species (https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/ 
development-planning-conservation-assessment/planning-tools/natural-values-atlas). See notes below for more information. 


Vertebrate species! Common name Group Status Status Key island or group? 
TAS CW 
Arctocephalus forsteri Long-nosed (NZ) Fur MAMMALS r - Macquarie, Maatsuyker, Flat 
Seal 4 Witch, Tasman, Taillefer 
Rocks, Ile des Phoques, Cape 
Raoul, Cape Pillar, Wendar 
and others in Bass Strait 
Arctocephalus tropicalis Subantarctic Fur Seal MAMMALS e EN Macquarie and occasionally 
elsewhere 
Dasyurus maculatus Spotted-tailed Quoll MAMMALS r VU King (now extinct)3 
Dasyurus viverrinus Eastern Quoll MAMMALS - EN  Bruny4 
Mirounga leonina Southern Elephant Seal MAMMALS e VU Macquarie, Maatsuyker, 
Bruny, King, Forsyth and 
occasionally elsewhere 
Perameles gunnii gunnii Eastern-barred Bandicoot MAMMALS - VU Bruny4 
Pseudomys novaehollandiae | New Holland Mouse MAMMALS e VU _ Flinders 
Sarcophilus harrisii Tasmanian Devil MAMMALS e EN _ Robbins, Maria 
Acanthiza pusilla archibaldi — Brown Thornbill (King Is) | BIRDS e EN _ King 
Acanthornis magna greeniana _ Scrubtit (King Island) BIRDS e CR King 
Accipiter novaehollandiae Grey Goshawk BIRDS e - Bruny?, may be elsewhere 
BIRDS e EN Many islands inc Bruny 


Aquila audax fleayi Wedge-tailed Eagle 


APPENDIX 1 — cont. 


Overview of Tasmania’ offshore islands and their role in nature conservation 97 


Vertebrate species! Common name Group Status Status Key island or group? 
TAS CW 
Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian Bittern BIRDS - EN _ King, Flinders, Bruny> 
Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper BIRDS - CR King, Perkins, Furneaux 
Group, occasionally elsewhere 
Ceyx azureus diemenensis Tasmanian Azure BIRDS e EN «Flinders, King, Bruny, 
Kingfisher occasionally elsewhere 
Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae Macquarie Island Parakeet BIRDS x EX — Macquarie® 
erythrotis 
Diomedea exulans Wandering Albatross BIRDS e VU Macquarie® 
Dromaius minor King Island Emu BIRDS x EX King 
Gallirallus philippensis Macquarie Island Rail BIRDS x EX — Macquarie® 
macquariensis 
Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle BIRDS Vv - Many islands including King, 
Flinders, Maria, Bruny and 
Maatsuyker Group 
Halebaena caerulea Blue Petrel BIRDS v VU Macquarie® 
Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot BIRDS e CR Maria, Bruny, Flinders, 
Partridge, possibly elsewhere 
Leucocarbo atriceps purpurascens Macquarie Island Shag BIRDS Vv VU Macquarie® 
Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant Petrel BIRDS v EN Macquarie®, occasionally 
elsewhere 
Macronectes halli Northern Giant Petrel BIRDS r VU. Macquarie®, occasionally 
elsewhere 
Neophema chrysogaster Orange-bellied Parrot BIRDS e CR King, possibly others in 
Boullanger Bay, Bruny 
(historic)> 
Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew BIRDS e CR Flinders, King, Bruny, Robbins, 
es Kangaroo, recorded elsewhere 
Oceanites oceanicus Wilson's Storm Petrel BIRDS r - Macquarie® 
Pachyptila turtur subantarctica Fairy Prion southern sub- = BIRDS e VU Macquarie® 
species 
Pardalotus quadragintus Forty-spotted Pardalote BIRDS e EN _ King (extinct)3, Flinders, Maria, 
Bruny, Partridge 
Phoebetria fusca Sooty Albatross BIRDS r VU Macquarie® 
Phoebetria palpebrata Light-mantled Albatross BIRDS v - Macquarie® 
Platycercus caledonicus brownii King Island Green Rosella | BIRDS Vv VU King 
Procellaria cinerea Grey Petrel BIRDS e - Macquarie® 
Pterodroma lessonii White-headed Petrel BIRDS Vv - Macquarie® 
Pterodroma mollis Soft-plumaged Petrel BIRDS e VU Macquarie®, Maatsuyker 
Sterna striata White-fronted Tern BIRDS v - Mainly islands in the Furneaux 
including truwana-Cape Barren, 
also Albatross and elsewhere 
Sterna vittata bethunei Antarctic Tern BIRDS e EN — Macquarie® 
Sternula albifrons sinensis Little Tern BIRDS e = King, Flinders, islands in Bass 
Strait and Boullanger Bay 
Sternula nereis nereis Fairy Tern BIRDS Vv VU _ King, Flinders, islands in Bass 
Strait and Boullanger Bay and 
elsewhere 
Strepera fuliginosa colei Black Currawong (King Is) BIRDS 2 VU King 
Thalassarche cauta Shy Albatross BIRDS Vv EN _ Albatross, Pedra Branca, 


Mewstone, occasionally 
elsewhere 


98 Sally L. Bryant and Stephen Harris 


APPENDIX 1 - cont. 


Vertebrate species! Common name Group Status Status Key island or group? 
TAS CW 
Thalassarche chrysostoma Grey-headed Albatross BIRDS e EN — Macquarie®, occasionally 
elsewhere 
Thalassarche melanophris Black-browed Albatross BIRDS e VU Macquarie®, occasionally 
elsewhere 
Thinornis cucullatus cucullatus Hooded Plover (Eastern) BIRDS - VU Many islands including King, 
Flinders, Bruny, Maria and in 
Bass Strait 
Tyto novaehollandiae Masked Owl BIRDS e VU _ Bruny?, Maria, Trefoil, Betsey, 
castanops occasionally elsewhere 
Litoria raniformis Green and Gold Frog AMPHIBIANS Vv VU _ King, Flinders, Maria 
Limnodynastes peroni Striped Marsh Frog AMPHIBIANS e - King 
Carinascincus palfreymani Pedra Branca Skink REPTILES e VU _ Pedra Branca 
Pseudemoia rawlinsoni Glossy Grass Skink REPTILES r - truwana-Cape Barren, Picnic? 
Pseudemoia pagenstecheri Tussock Skink REPTILES Vv - truwana-Cape Barren 
Galaxiella pusilla Dwarf Galaxias FISH Vv VU Flinders 
Invertebrate species Common name Order Status Status Island or group 
TAS CW 
Austrorhytida lamproides Keeled Snail SIGMURE- r - Three Hummock 
THRA 
Cavernotettix craggiensis Craggy Island Cave ORTHOP- r - Craggy (north west of Flinders) 
Cricket TERA 
Chloritobadistes victoriae Southern Hairy Red Snail © EUPUL- v - King 
MONATA 
Dasyurotaenia robusta Tapeworm (Tasmanian CYCLO- r - Robbins, Maria 
Devil) PHYLLIDEAE 
Echinodillo cavaticus Flinders Island Cave Slater ISOPODA r - Flinders 
Engaeus martigener Furneaux Burrowing DECAPODA v EN _ Flinders, truwana-Cape Barren 
Crayfish 
Lissotes latidens Broad-toothed Stag Beetle COLEOP- e EN Maria 
TERA 
Lissotes menalcas Mt. Mangana Stag Beetle COLEOPTERA r - Bruny 
Parvotettix rangaensis Cave Cricket ORTHOPTERA r - truwana-Cape Barren 
Parvotettix whinrayi Whinray's Cave Cricket. | ORTHOPTERA r - Flinders 
Theclinesthes serpentata Chequered Blue LEPIDOPTERA r - Flinders, Diamond 


1 Table does not include Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus, or Great Knot Calidris tenuirostris (listed on EPBC but not on 
https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/threatened-species-and-communities/lists-of-threatened-species/full-list-of-threatened-species) 
or White-throated Needletail Hirundapus caudacutus as mainly arboreal 

2 Only main islands mentioned and may be recorded on islands elsewhere. 

3 Additional reference for Spotted-tailed Quoll and Forty-spotted Pardalote: Donaghey, R. (ed.) 2003: The fauna of King Island: A 
guide to identification and conservation management. King Island Natural Resource Management Group Inc. King Island: 152 pp. 

4 Additional reference for Eastern Quoll and Eastern-barred Bandicoot: Driessen, M.M., Carlyon, K., Gales, R., Mooney, N., Pauza, 
M., Thurstans, S., Visoiu, M. & Wise, P. 2011: Terrestrial mammals of a sheep-grazing property on Bruny Island, Tasmania. Papers 


and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 145: 51-64. 


5 Birds on Bruny Island supported by the checklist: hteps://www.brunybirdfestival.org.au/images/downloads/Bird_Festival_2018_-_ 
Checklist_of_bird_species_found_on_Bruny_lIsland.pdf 
6 Macquarie Island species source https://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/checklist.jsp?region=AUmi&list=howardmoore (accessed 1 October 2020). 


Overview of Tasmania’ offshore islands and their role in nature conservation 99 


APPENDIX 2 — Threatened flora species recorded on Tasmania’s offshore islands. 1 


Species name? 
Acacia ulicifolia 


Acrotriche cordata 
Allocasuarina crassa 
Allocasuarina duncanii 
Aphelia gracilis 


Asperula minima 


Asperula scoparia vat. 
scoparia 


Asperula subsimplex 


Atriplex suberecta 


Australina pusilla 
subsp. muelleri 


Austrodanthonia 
remota 


Austrostipa 
bigeniculata 


Austrostipa blackii 


Azorella macquariensis 


Banksia integrifolia 
Banksia serrata 
Baumea gunnii 
Bedfordia arborescens 


Bolboschoenus 
caldwellii 


Bolboschoenus 
medianus 


Brachyloma depressum 


Brachyscome perpusilla 
Caladenia aurantiaca 


Caladenia australis 


Caladenia brachyscapa 


Caladenia cardiochila 


Caladenia caudata 


Caladenia filamentosa 


var. filamentosa 


Common name 
Juniper Wattle 


Coast Groundberry 
Cape Pillar Sheoak 
Conical Sheoak 
Slender Fanwort 


Mossy Woodruff 
Prickly Woodruff 


Water Woodruff 
Sprawling Saltbush 


Shade Nettle 


Remote 
Wallabygrass 


Doublejointed 
Speargrass 


Crested Speargrass 


Macquarie 
Cushions 


Coast Banksia 
Saw Banksia 
Slender Twigsedge 
Tree Blanketleaf 
Sea Clubsedge 


Marsh Clubsedge 


Spreading Heath 


Tiny Daisy 
Orangetip Fingers 


Southern Spider- 
Orchid 


Short Spider- 
Orchid 


Heartlip Spider- 
Orchid 


Tailed Spider- 
Orchid 


Daddy Longlegs 


Family3 
Fabaceae 


Ericaceae 
Casuarinaceae 
Casuarinaceae 
Centrolepidaceae 


Rubiaceae 
Rubiaceae 


Rubiaceae 


Amaranthaceae 


Urticaceae 
Poaceae 
Poaceae 


Poaceae 


Apiaceae 


~ Proteaceae 


Proteaceae 
Cyperaceae 
Asteraceae 


Cyperaceae 
Cyperaceae 


Ericaceae 


Asteraceae 
Orchidaceae 
Orchidaceae - 


~ Orchidaceae 


Orchidaceae 


Orchidaceae 


Orchidaceae 


Status? Status? 
TAS Cw 


rare 


vulnerable 
rare 
rare 
rare 


fare 
rare 


rare 


vulnerable 


rare 
rare 
rare 


rare 


endangered Critically 


endangered 


extinct 
rare 

rare 
vulnerable 


rare 
rare 


rare 


rare 
endangered 


endangered 
Extinct 


endangered 


extinct 


vulnerable 


rare 


Vulnerable 


Island or group 


Flinders Island; Three Hummock 
Island; Bruny Island 


Prime Seal Island; Flinders Island 
Tegnen Island 

Bruny Island 

Flinders Island 


Inner Sister Island; Vansittart Island; 
Inner Sister Island; Flinders Island 


Bruny Island 


Flinders Island 


Little Chalky Island; Wybalenna 
Island; Boxen Island; Badger Island; 
Beagle Island; Little Badger Island; 
Outer Green Island 


King Island 
Hibbs Pyramid 
Anderson Islands 


Bruny Island 
Macquarie Island 


Long Island; Hogan Group 
Flinders Island 

Schouten Island, Flinders Island 
Cape Barren Island 

King Island 


King Island 

Flinders Island; Clarke Island; 
Schouten Island 

Flinders Island 


Deal Island 
Flinders Island 


Clarke Island; Cape Barren Island 


Flinders Island 


Bruny Island; Schouten Island; Clarke 
Island; Cape Barren Island; Flinders 
Island 


Bruny Island; Schouten Island; 
Flinders Island 


100 Sally L. Bryant and Stephen Harris 


APPENDIX 2 — cont. 


Species name? Common name Family? Status? Status? Island or group 
TAS Cw 
Caladenia prolata White Fingers Orchidaceae endangered Deal Island; Flinders Island 
Caladenia pusilla Tiny Fingers Orchidaceae rare King Island; Three Hummock Island; 
Cape Barren Island; Flinders Island; 
Deal Island 
Calandrinia Pygmy Purslane Portulacaceae rare Cape Barren Island; Flinders Island 
granulifera 
Callitriche sonderi Matted Plantaginaceae rare King Island 
Waterstarwort 
Calochilus campestris Copper Beard- Orchidaceae endangered Cape Barren Island; Clarke Island 
Orchid 
Calystegia marginata _ Forest Bindweed Convolvulaceae endangered Cape Barren Island 
Calystegia soldanella Sea Bindweed Convolvulaceae _ rare Bruny Island; King Island; East 
Kangaroo Island; Anderson Islands 
Carex gunniana Mountain Sedge Cyperaceae rare Bruny Island 
Caustis pentandra Thick Twistsedge Cyperaceae rare Schouten Island 
Centipeda Erect Sneezeweed Asteraceae rare King Island 
cunninghamii 
Centrolepis strigosa Bassian Bristlewort | Centrolepidaceae rare Cape Barren Island, Hogan Island; 
subsp. pulvinata Deal Island 
Chenopodium erosum Papery Goosefoot | Amaranthaceae _ extinct Kent Group 
Chiloglottis Broadlip Bird- Orchidaceae endangered Flinders Island; Great Dog Island 
trapeziformis Orchid 
Chiloglottis valida Large Bird-Orchid — Orchidaceae listing as King Island 
endangered 
pending 
(unofficial) 
Chrysocephalum Fringed Everlasting Asteraceae rare Clarke Island; Cape Barren Island; 
baxteri Flinders Island 
Comesperma Leafless Milkwort _ Polygalaceae rare Cape Barren Island, King Island 
defoliatum ; 
Conospermum hookeri "Tasmanian Proteaceae vulnerable Vulnerable Bruny Island; Cape Barren Island; 
Smokebush Schouten Island 
Corybas dienemus Windswept Helmet- Orchidaceae vulnerable Critically | Macquarie Island; Flinders Island; 
Orchid endangered King Island 
Corybas fordhamii Swamp Pelican- Orchidaceae endangered Flinders Island 
Orchid 
Corybas sulcatus Grooved Helmet- Orchidaceae endangered Critically | Macquarie Island 
Orchid endangered 
Cotula vulgaris var. Slender Buttons Asteraceae rare King Island; Three Hummock Island; 
australasica Cape Barren Island; Passage Island; 
Inner Sister Island; Flinders Island; 
Hogan Island; Deal Island 
Crassula moschata Musky Stonecrop Crassulaceae rare Macquarie Island; King Island; Black 
Pyramid; Albatross Island; Trefoil 
Island; Vansittart Island; Curtis Island; 
Bruny Island; Gull Reef Port Davey 
Cryptandra exilis Slender Pearlflower | Rhamnaceae listing as Schouten Island; Cape Barren Island 
vulnerable 
under con- 
sideration 


(unofficial) 


APPENDIX 2 - cont. 


Species name> 


Cryptostylis leptochila 


Cuscuta tasmanica 
Cyathea cunninghamii 
Cyathea Xmarcescens 
Cyathodes platystoma 
Cyphanthera 


tasmanica 


Cyrtostylis robusta 


Desmodium gunnii 
Deyeuxia minor 
Diuris palustris 
Drosera glanduligera 
Elaeocarpus reticulatus 
Epacris barbata 


Epacris virgata 
(Kettering) 


Epilobium 
pallidiflorum 
Eucalyptus globulus 
subsp. globulus 
Euphrasia collina 
subsp. deflexifolia 
Euphrasia fragosa 
Eutaxia microphylla 


Frankenia pauciflora 
var. gunnii 


Galium antarcticum 
Geococcus pusillus 
Gompholobium 
ecostatum 

Gratiola pubescens 
Gynatrix pulchella 


Gyrostemon thesioides 


Hackelia latifolia 


Common name 


Small Tongue- 
Orchid 


Golden Dodder 
Slender Treefern 
Skirted Treefern 
Tall Cheeseberry 


Tasmanian 
Rayflower 


Large Gnat-Orchid 


Southern Ticktrefoil 
Small Bentgrass 
Swamp Doubletail 
Scarlet Sundew 
Blueberry Ash 
Bearded Heath 
Pretty Heath 


Showy Willowherb 


Gippsland Blue 
Gum 

Eastern Eyebright 
Shy Eyebright 


Spiny Bushpea 


Southern Seaheath 


Subantarctic 
Bedstraw 

Earth Cress 

Dwarf Wedgepea 
Hairy Brooklime 
Fragrant Hempbush 


Broom Wheelfruit 


Forest 
Houndstongue 


Overview of Tasmania offshore islands and their role in nature conservation 101 


Family3 


Orchidaceae 


Convolvulaceae 
Cyatheaceae 
Cyatheaceae 
Ericaceae 


Solanaceae 


Orchidaceae 


Fabaceae 
Poaceae 
Orchidaceae 
Droseraceae 
Elaeocarpaceae 
Ericaceae 


Ericaceae 


Onagraceae 


Myrtaceae 


Orobanchaceae 
Orobanchaceae 
Fabaceae 


Frankeniaceae 


Rubiaceae 


Brassicaceae 


Fabaceae 


Plantaginaceae 
Malvaceae 
Gyrostemonaceae 


Boraginaceae 


Status? 
TAS 


endangered 


rare 
endangered 
endangered 
rare 


rare 


rare 


vulnerable 
rare 
endangered 
rare 

rare 
endangered 


vulnerable 


(unofficial) 


rare, 
delisting 
pending 
rare 

rare 
endangered 


rare 


rare 


endangered 
rare 
endangered 
rare 

rare 

rare 


rare 


Status? 
cw 


Endangered 


Critically 
endangered 


Critically 
endangered 


Island or group 


Flinders Island; Cape Barren Island 


Flinders Island 

King Island 

King Island 

Bruny Island 

Maria Island; Schouten Island 


Flinders Island; West Sister Island; 
Prime Seal Island; Hunter Island; King 
Island; Deal Island 

Schouten Island 

Bruny Island 

Flinders Island 

Flinders Island 

Flinders Island; King Island 

Schouten Island 


Bruny Island 


King Island; Hunter Island 


Flinders Island; Inner Sister Island; 
Rodondo Island 


Schouten Island 
Bruny Island 


Prime Seal Island; Flinders Island; 
Cape Barren Island 


Harcus Island, Short Island; Little 
Goose Island; Preservation Island; 
Spike Island; Clarke Island; Rum 
Island; Cone Island 


Macquarie Island 


Mount Chappell Island; Little Chalky 
Island; Mile Island; King Island 


Flinders Island 


King Island; Cape Barren Island; 
Bruny Island 


Flinders Island; Cape Barren Island; 
Maria Island 


- Deal Island; Flinders Island; Cape 


Barren Island; Clarke Island 
King Island 


102 Sally L. Bryant and Stephen Harris 


APPENDIX 2 — cont. 


Species name? Common name Family3 Status? Status? Island or group 
TAS cw 
Hakea ulicina Furze Needlebush Proteaceae vulnerable Flinders Island; Cape Barren; Clarke 
Island 
Haloragis myriocarpa Prickly Raspwort Haloragaceae rare Flinders Island; Clarke Island; Cape 
Barren Island; King Island 
Hedycarya angustifolia Australian Mulberry Monimiaceae rare King Island 
Hibbertia obtusifolia | Grey Guineaflower _Dilleniaceae extinct Clarke Island 
Hydrocotyle comocarpa  Fringefruit Araliaceae rare Flinders Island; Cape Barren; Deal 
Pennywort Island 
Hydrorchis orbicularis © Swamp Onion- Orchidaceae rare Bruny Island; Clarke Island; Cape 
Orchid Barren Island; Flinders Island 
Hypolepis distans Scrambling Dennstaedtiaceae endangered Endangered King Island 
Groundfern 
Hypolepis muelleri Harsh Groundfern Dennstaedtiaceae rare Flinders Island; King Island 
Tsoetes drummondii Plain Quillwort Isoetaceae rare Flinders Island 
subsp. drummondii 
Tsopogon ceratophyllus Horny Conebush Proteaceae vulnerable Cape Barren Island; Flinders Island; 
Clarke Island 
Juncus amabilis Gentle Rush Juncaceae rare, Bruny Island 
delisting 
pending 
Juncus prismatocarpus Branching Rush Juncaceae rare Bruny Island 
Juncus vaginatus Clustered Rush Juncaceae rare Wedge Island 
Lachnagrostis Small-Awn Poaceae rare Flinders Island; Forsyth Island; Passage 
billardierei subsp. Blowngrass Island 
tenuiseta 
Lachnagrostis robusta _ Tall Blowngrass Poaceae rare Cape Barren Island; Gull Reef Port 
Davey; Celery Top Islands; Maria 
Island; Cape Barren Island; Flinders 
Island | 
Lasiopetalum baueri Slender Velvetbush . Malvaceae rare Flinders Island 
Lasiopetalum discolor — Coast Velvetbush Malvaceae rare Prime Seal Island; Cape Barren Island 
Lepidium flexicaule Springy Peppercress Brassicaceae rare Bruny Island; Three Hummock; Gull 
Reef Port Davey; Black Swan Island; 
Muttonbird Island 
Lepidosperma forsythii Stout Rapiersedge  Cyperaceae rare Schouten Island; Cape Barren Island 
Lepidosperma Twisting Cyperaceae rare Clarke Island 
tortuosum Rapiersedge 
Lepidosperma viscidum Sticky Swordsedge  Cyperaceae rare Bruny Island 
Lepilaena patentifolia Spreading Watermat Potamogeton- rare Flinders Island; King Island 
aceae 
Lepilaena preissii Slender Watermat — Potamogeton- rare Flinders Island 
aceae 
Leucopogon affinis Lanceleaf Ericaceae rare King Island; Three Hummock Island; 
Beardheath Clarke Island; Cape Barren Island; 
Flinders Island 
Leucopogon Swamp Beardheath — Ericaceae rare Flinders Island; Cape Barren Island 
esquamatus 
Levenhookia dubia Hairy Stylewort Stylidiaceae extinct Flinders Island 


APPENDIX 2 — cont. 


Overview of Tasmania’ offshore islands and their role in nature conservation 103 


Species name? Common name Family Status? Island or group 
TAS 
Limonium australe Yellow Sea-Lavender Plumbaginaceae rare Harcus Island, Short Island; Perkins 
Island 
Lobelia pratioides Poison Lobelia Campanulaceae vulnerable Flinders Island 
Lotus australis Australian Trefoil Fabaceae rare Flinders Island; Swan Island; 
Foster Island; Trefoil Island; Three 
Hummock Island 
Microtis atrata Yellow Onion- Orchidaceae rare Bruny Island, Cape Barren Island and 
Orchid Flinders Island 
Myoporum Creeping Boobialla  Scrophulariaceae vulnerable Flinders Island 
parvifolium 
Mpyriophyllum muelleri Hooded Haloragaceae rare King Island; Long Island; Vansittart 
Watermilfoil Island; Cape Barren Island, Clarke 
Island 
Orthoceras strictum Horned Orchid Orchidaceae rare King Island; Schouten Island; Clarke 
: Island; Cape Barren Island; Flinders 
Island 
Pandorea pandorana — Wonga Vine Bignoniaceae rare Flinders Island 
Parietaria debilis Shade Pellitory Urticaceae rare King Island; Three Hummock Island; 
Erith Island, Deal Island, Rodondo 
Island; West Sister Island; Prime Seal 
Island; Great Dog Island; Puncheon 
Island; Little Green Island; Passage 
Island; Babel Island; Mount Chappell 
Island; Swan Island; Bruny Island 
Pellaea calidirupium  Hotrock Fern Adiantaceae rare Deal Island 
Persicaria decipiens Slender Polygonaceae vulnerable King Island 
Waterpepper 
Phyllangium distylis Tiny Mitrewort Loganiaceae rare Flinders Island; Cape Barren Island; 
King Island 
Phyllangium divergens Wiry Mitrewort Loganiaceae vulnerable Bruny Island; Clarke Island; Cape 
Barren Island 
Phylloglossum Pygmy Clubmoss Lycopodiaceae rare King Island, Cape Barren Island and 
drummondii Flinders Island 
Pimelea axiflora subsp. Bootlace Bush Thymelaeaceae endangered King Island 
axiflora 
Pimelea curviflora Curved Riceflower  Thymelaeaceae parent Schouten Island; Flinders Island; 
species Badger Island 
(unofficial) 
Pimelea micrantha Silky Curved Thymelaeaceae rare Flinders Island 
Riceflower 
Pneumatopteris Lime Fern Thélypteridaceae endangered King Island 
pennigera 
Poa cookii Cooks Tussockgrass * Poaceae endangered Macquarie Island 
Poa halmaturina Dune Tussockgrass Poaceae rare Clarke Island; Flinders Island 
Podotheca angustifolia Sticky Longheads Asteraceae extinct King Island 
Polystichum vestitum Prickly Shieldfern — Dryopteridaceae _ endangered Macquarie Island 
Pomaderris intermedia Lemon Dogwood — Rhamnaceae rare Flinders Island; Cape Barren Island; 
Schouten Island 
Pomaderris oraria Bassian Dogwood — Rhamnaceae rare Flinders Island 


subsp. oraria 


104 Sally L. Bryant and Stephen Harris 


APPENDIX 2 - cont. 


Species name> Common name Family3 Status? Status? Island or group 
TAS CW 
Pomaderris paniculosa Shining Dogwood —_ Rhamnaceae rare King Island; Erith Island; Hogan 
subsp. paralia Island, Prime Seal Island; Outer Sister 
Island; Swan Island; East Sister Island 
Prasophyllum Tapered Leek- Orchidaceae vulnerable Endangered Bruny Island 
apoxychilum Orchid 
Prasophyllum atratum Three Hummock Orchidaceae endangered Critically | Three Hummock Island; Hunter 
Leek-Orchid Endangered Island 
Prasophyllum Chestnut Leek- Orchidaceae endangered Critically Bruny Island 
castaneum Orchid Endangered 
Prasophyllum secutum Northern Leek- Orchidaceae endangered Endangered Cape Barren Island, Flinders Island; 
Orchid Hunter Island; Robbins Island 
Pterostylis cucullata Leafy Greenhood Orchidaceae endangered Vulnerable _ King Island; Hunter Island; Three 
Hummock Island; Flinders Island 
Pterostylis lustra Small Sickle Orchidaceae endangered Perkins Island 
Greenhood 
Pterostylis sanguinea Banded Greenhood —_ Orchidaceae rare Cape Barren Island; Clarke Island; 
: Flinders Island; Deal Island 
Prerostylis squamata Ruddy Greenhood — Orchidaceae vulnerable Bruny Island 
Prerostylis tunstallii Tunstalls Orchidaceae endangered Vansittart Island; Flinders Island; 
Greenhood Swan Island 
Ranunculus diminutus Brackish Buttercup Ranunculaceae endangered Badger Island 
Ranunculus pumilio Ferny Buttercup Ranunculaceae rare Flinders Island 
var. pumilio 
Scaevola albida Pale Fanflower Goodeniaceae vulnerable Flinders Island 
Schenkia australis Spike Centaury Gentianaceae rare Hunter Island; Three Hummock 
Island; Cape Barren Island; Flinders 
Island 
Schoenoplectus River Clubsedge Cyperaceae rare Flinders Island; King Island 
tabernaemontani 
Schoenoplectus validus River Clubsedge Cyperaceae rare King Island 
Schoenus brevifolius Zigzag Bogsedge Cyperaceae rare Bruny Island 
Scleranthus fasciculatus Spreading Knawel — Caryophyll-aceae__ vulnerable Flinders Island; Bruny Island 
Scutellaria humilis Dwarf Skullcap Lamiaceae rare Maria Island 
Senecio psilocarpus Swamp Fireweed Asteraceae endangered Vulnerable _ Flinders Island; King Island 
Senecio squarrosus Leafy Fireweed Asteraceae rare Partridge Island; Bruny Island 
Sicyos australis Star Cucumber Cucurbitaceae rare Inner Sister Island; Outer Sister Island 
Solanum opacum Greenberry Solanaceae endangered Deal Island; Kent Group; Prime Seal 
Nightshade Island; Inner Sister Island; King Island 
Spyridium parvifolium Soft Dustymiller Rhamnaceae rare _ Flinders Island; Cape Barren Island; 
var. molle Clarke Island 
Spyridium parvifolium Coast Dustymiller | Rhamnaceae rare Flinders Island; Cape Barren Island 
var. parvifolium 
Spyridium vexilliferum Helicopter Bush Rhamnaceae rare Prime Seal Island; Flinders Island; 
var. vexilliferum : Schouten Island 
Stellaria multiflora Nebulous Rayless Caryophyllaceae rare Deal Island; Curtis Island; Flinders 
subsp. nebulosa Starwort Island; Vansittart Island; Little Dog 


Island; Swan Island 


APPENDIX 2 - cont. 


Species name? 


Stuckenia pectinata 
Stylidium beaugleholei 
Stylidium despectum 
Stylidium perpusillum 


Taraxacum cygnorum 


Teloschistes flavicans 


Teucrium corymbosum 
Teucrium corymbosum 
Thelymitra antennifera 


Thelymitra atronitida 


Thelymitra 
benthamiana 


Thelymitra holmesii 


Thelymitra improcera 


Thelymitra jonesii 


Thelymitra malvina 


Thelymitra mucida 


Thynninorchis 
huntiana 


Tmesipteris parva 
Tricostularia pauciflora 


Triglochin minutissima 


Triglochin mucronata 


Trithuria submersa 


Utricularia australis 


Utricularia tenella 


Utricularia violacea 
Velleia paradoxa 


Vittadinia muelleri 


Wikonia humilis 


Common name 


Fennel Pondweed 


Blushing 
Triggerplant 


Blushing 
Triggerplant 


Tiny Triggerplant 


Coast Dandelion 


Golden-Hair Lichen 


Forest Germander 
Forest Germander 
Rabbit Ears 


Blackhood Sun- 
Orchid 


Blotched Sun- 
Orchid 


Bluestar Sun- 
Orchid 


Coast Sun-Orchid 
Skyblue Sun-Orchid 


Mauvetuft Sun- 
Orchid 


Plum Sun-Orchid 


Elbow Orchid 


Small Forkfern 
Needle Bogsedge 
Tiny Arrowgrass 


Prickly Arrowgrass 


Submerged 
Watertuft 


Yellow Bladderwort 
Pink Bladderwort 


Violet Bladderwort 
Spur Velleia 


Narrowleaf New- 
Holland-Daisy 


Silky Wilsonia 


Overview of Tasmania’ offshore islands and their role in nature conservation 105 


Family3 


Potamogeton- 
aceae 
Stylidiaceae 
Stylidiaceae 


Stylidiaceae 


Asteraceae 


Teloschistaceae 


Lamiaceae 
Lamiaceae 
Orchidaceae 


Orchidaceae 
Orchidaceae 
Orchidaceae 


Orchidaceae 
Orchidaceae 


Orchidaceae 


Orchidaceae 


Orchidaceae 


Psilotaceae 
Cyperaceae 


Juncaginaceae 


Juncaginaceae 


Hydatellaceae 


Lentibulariaceae 


Lentibulariaceae 


Lentibulariaceae 
Goodeniaceae 


Asteraceae 


Convolvulaceae 


Status? 
TAS 


rare 
rare 
rare 


rare 


rare 


rare 
rare 
endangered 


endangered 
endangered 
rare 


endangered 


endangered 


endangered 


rare 
(unofficial), 
listing as 
endangered 
pending 


extinct 


vulnerable 
rare 


rare 


endangered 


fare 


rare 


rare 


rare 
vulnerable 


rare 


rare 


Status2 
CW 


Vulnerable 


Endangered 


Island or group 


Flinders Island; Cape Barren Island; 
Clarke Island 


King Island; Flinders Island; Cape 
Barren Island; Flinders Island 


King Island; Flinders Island; Clarke 
Island 


King Island; Cape Barren Island; 
Clarke Island 


Prime Seal Island; Flinders Island 


Inner Sister Island; Outer Sister 
Island; Babel Island 


Bruny Island 
Maria Island; Bruny Island 
Hunter Island 


Bruny Island; Cape Barren Island 
Flinders Island 


King Island; Bruny Island; Cape 
Barren Island; Flinders Island 


King Island 


Schouten Island; Cape Barren Island; 
Bruny Island 


Hunter Island; Three Hummock 
Island; Robbins Island; Cape Barren 
Island; Flinders Island 


Bruny Island; Flinders Island 


Flinders Island 


Flinders and King Islands 
Cape Barren Island; Schouten Island 


Erith Island; Flinders Island; Clarke 
Island; Forsyth Island; King Island 


Vansittart Island; Flinders Island 


Cape Barren Island; King Island 


Flinders Island; Bruny Island 


King Island; Clarke Island; Cape 
Barren Island; Flinders Island 


Flinders Island 
Bruny Island 
Bruny Island; Maria Island 


Flinders Island 


106 Sally L. Bryant and Stephen Harris 


APPENDIX 2 — cont. 


Species name? Common name Family? 


Wilsonia rotundifolia | Roundleaf Wilsonia Convolvulaceae 


Xanthoparmelia Lichen Parmeliaceae 
microphyllizans 


Xerochrysum bicolor Eastcoast Paperdaisy Asteraceae 


Zygophyllum Coast Twinleaf Zygophyllaceae 
billardierei 


Island or group 


Deal Island; Cape Barren Island 
Deal Island 


Mount Chappell Island; Maria Island 


Flinders Island; Prime Seal Island 


| Species listed were generated from the Natural Values Atlas (Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment: DPIPWE) 
which relies on multiple sources both Herbarium vouchered and observational. The information was accessed on 30 October 2020. 
The Threatened Species Section (DPIPWE) should be consulted for up to date status, especially for those taxa whose status is listed as 


“pending” or “unofficial”. 


2 Tasmanian status is in accordance with listings under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. National status (Status CW) refers to 
listings under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. 
3 Nomenclature of species and family follows de Salas & Baker (2018). 


IRN GSS 


paaier 
aee